chapter 13, stotskyvcmth00m/chap13.pdf · “los angeles…is one of several cities in the usi...

Chapter 13

National Science Foundation Systemic Initiatives:How a small amount of federal money promotes ill-designedmathematics and science programs in K-12 andundermines local control of education

Michael McKeownMathematically Correct

David KleinCalifornia State University, Los Angeles

Chris PattersonEducation Connection of Texas

Since its inception in 1950, the National Science Foundation (NSF) hasplayed a strong, positive role in making American scientific research andtechnological application the best in the world. Through its funding ofpeer-reviewed, investigator-initiated research proposals, it has supportedbasic research in a wide variety of scientific disciplines, such asmathematics, biology, physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, andpsychology. American science owes much to the support it has received,and continues to receive, from NSF. This chapter deals with a programin the Education and Human Resources Division called the NSFSystemic Initiatives Program, not with NSF programs related directly tothe support of basic research. We are highly critical of this particularNSF program. Not only do the Systemic Initiatives undermine localcontrol of education, but, as our analysis in this chapter suggests, theyalso seem to lower academic standards for mathematics education andweaken the educational base for American science.

This chapter is composed of three sections. The first section, anoverview of NSF Systemic Initiatives, was written by MichaelMcKeown. The second section, an analysis of the development and

288 Standards Wars

features of the Los Angeles Systemic Initiative, was written by DavidKlein. The third section, an analysis of the development and features ofthe Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative, was written by Chris Patterson.

Problems Raised by the NSF Systemic Initiatives

A private individual comes to the principal of a school and offers to pay$5 per student to help students improve in mathematics and science.Although this is a minuscule amount ($100 to $150 per classroom), itsounds appealing. But there is a catch: The donor makes it clear that hewill insist on a complete revamping of the way the school teachesmathematics and science, including the choice of textbooks, the schooldistrict’s academic standards, and possibly even its graduation standards.Of course, he won’t buy the textbooks or allow public discussion of themethods of instruction he thinks are appropriate. He will let his moneybe used only if the school district undertakes to implement everything hehas spelled out. Should the school take the money (about 0.1% or lessof the true cost of running the school)? Of course not.

Now substitute the federal government for a private donor, and a stateeducation agency or an urban school district for a single school, but keepall the other conditions in place, including insistence on changes in keyeducational policies for a minuscule financial contribution. Should thestate or school district take the money? In a hypothetical world, theanswer should still be “No.” But in the real world, the answer has been“Yes” for 24 states and 22 major urban school districts (see Table 1).Each of these states and school districts accepted a NSF SystemicInitiative grant to make “fundamental, comprehensive, and coordinatedchanges in science, mathematics, and technology education throughattendant changes in policy, resource allocation, governance,management, content and conduct.”1 NSF wants changes in all theseareas in order for schools to achieve the kind of “systemic reform” it hasin mind.

13. National Science Foundation Systemic Initiatives 289

Table 1. State and Urban Systemic Initiatives

State Systemic InitiativesArkansas California Colorado Connecticut DelawareFlorida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana MaineMassachusetts Michigan Montana Nebraska New JerseyNew Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio South CarolinaSouth Dakota Texas Vermont Virginia

Urban Systemic Initiatives1994Baltimore Chicago Cincinnati DetroitEl Paso Miami New York Phoenix

1995Cleveland Columbus Dallas FresnoLos Angeles Memphis New Orleans Philadelphia

1996Milwaukee San Antonio San Diego St. Louis

1998Atlanta Jacksonville

The nature and scope of the policy changes that the NSF SystemicInitiatives Program is enticing state and local educational systems toadopt raise two broad questions that need far more open discussion thanthey have so far received. The first concerns the federal government’sunpublicized assumption of what have historically been local educationalresponsibilities and the way in which it is assuming them. The secondconcerns the value or effectiveness of the science and mathematicsprograms, policies, and curricular materials that this NSF programexpects state and local school districts to adopt as the condition forsecuring its funds. In this chapter, we show how the NSF SystemicInitiatives Program enables employees of a federal agency to foreclosefurther state and local educational decision making on matters ofcurriculum and pedagogy, without broad public examination anddiscussion of their educational philosophy. We also describe the seriousdeficiencies in the instructional programs and materials this program ispromoting.

290 Standards Wars

Foreclosing State and Local Control of Curriculum and Instruction,and Redirecting Educational Resources

School districts throughout the country, especially urban districts, arestrapped for funds. Growing student populations, increases in theproportion of at risk students, increases in the services expected ofschools, increasing salaries of aging teachers and administrators, anddeteriorating facilities all put pressure on school budgets and on themoney available for new classroom materials and continuingprofessional development of the teaching force. In such a situation, anymoney outside the usual sources of funds that may increase the availablebudget is highly valued. Eagerness by school administrators foradditional outside money creates a great deal of leverage for those whocan supply these highly coveted marginal dollars. An external fundingagency seeking specific changes in a school district’s educationalpolicies, programs, and curricular materials may be able to make thegranting of its funds contingent upon the district’s meeting the agency’sconditions.

Traditionally, education in the United States has been a responsibilityof states and local school districts. The federal government played arelatively minor role in educational matters until Congress passed theNational Defense Education Act in 1958 and other legislation in the1960s as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty. Even today, itmakes a small financial contribution relative to the funds raised locally tosupport the public schools. NSF itself has made no attempt until recentlyto change and redirect the entire network of educational policies in astate or school district; the mathematics and science programs that ithelped develop before and after Sputnik in the 1950s were madeavailable to the schools without strings attached.

The relationship between NSF and state and local school systemsbegan to change in the late 1980s because the national governmentsought to bring about a series of changes in local school systems that itbelieved would improve mathematics and science education in thscountry. At the 1989 Education Summit attended by President Bush andall 50 governors, participants made a commitment to make U.S. studentsfirst in mathematics and science by the year 2000.2 As its contributionto that goal, NSF launched its first Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSIs)in 1991 to achieve systemic reform in a number of target states. In 1994the first Urban Systemic Initiatives (USIs) appeared, followed by theRural Systemic Initiatives (RSIs). Funding for the SSIs peaked in 1993,


and the bulk of funding currently goes to the USIs. In 1999, theapproximate funding levels are $21 million for the SSIs, $86 million forthe USIs, and $10 million for the RSIs.3

In general, the SSIs contribute approximately $2 million per year tostate education departments, while the USIs contribute $3 million peryear to local districts. At first glance, a contribution of $3 million a yearto an urban school district seems a major boon, but when the actual perstudent support is calculated, it becomes clear how small a fraction ofactual costs is covered by NSF funds. For example, in San Diego, with130,000 students, USI funding averages $23 per student, about one halfof one percent or less of total costs. In the larger Los Angeles schooldistrict, per student support is less than $4. This is like a 4 cent savingon a $50 purchase. Yet, the amount seems to be large enough to seduceschool districts into making substantial changes in programs and policiesas the condition for receiving NSF funds. This small amount of money,in effect, enables the federal government to shape or reshape state andlocal educational policies and direct use of their resources even thoughlocal and state taxpayers are footing most of the bills.

The use of NSF money at the margin of the budget to leveragesystemwide changes in educational policies and programs at the state orlocal level is not an inadvertent consequence of well intentionedprograms; it is NSF’s plan. Luther Williams, Assistant Director forEducation and Human Resources and a microbiologist by training, madethat clear in a July 1998 USI Summary Update.4

The NSF investment that promotes systemic reform will never exceed a small

percentage of a given site’s overall budget. The ‘converged’ resources are not

merely fiscal, but also strategic, in that they help induce a unitary…reform

operation. The catalytic nature of the USI-led reform obligates systemwide

policy and fiscal resources to embrace standards-based instruction and create

conditions for helping assorted…expenditures to become organized and used in a

single-purpose direction.

Williams goes on to spell out exactly how districts have redirected otherresources to meet the conditions of the USI grant: “Cleveland devotedhalf of its available bond referendum funding” for USI-relatedinstructional material. “Los Angeles…is one of several cities in the USIportfolio that places all Title II funding resources under the control of theUSI.” “In the Fresno Unified School System, $31 million of Title 1

292 Standards Wars

funds have been realigned in support of USI activities.” It is clear thatWilliams both seeks and approves of use of school district funds tosupport Systemic Initiative programs.

It is not unreasonable, and it is often desirable, for the federalgovernment to attach guidelines for the use of the funds it makesavailable to states and local communities for many purposes. That thisNSF program mandates a particular direction on matters for which thefederal government does not have educational responsibility—matters ofcurriculum and pedagogy—becomes clear when there is deviation from,or opposition to, what this program sees as fundamental components ofits notion of systemic reform. These components include the particularsets of K-12 science and mathematics standards that this program favors:those created by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(NCTM), the American Association for the Advancement of Science(AAAS), and the National Research Council (NRC). The problem is notthat this program requires school districts across the country to useacademic standards in the redesign of science and mathematics programsfor K-12. The problem is that this NSF program implicitly if notexplicitly mandates the use of certain sets of standards instead of others(including those developed by the states themselves), as well as certaincurricular, instructional, and classroom management practices instead ofothers.

That this NSF program is attempting to impose its administrators’beliefs about what they think is best for the students in our public schoolswith respect to standards, pedagogy, and curriculum was clearly revealedin 1997 when the California Board of Education adopted a new set ofstatewide mathematics standards.5 As we discuss below in the contextof the Los Angeles Systemic Initiative, these grade-by-grade standardsare clear, demanding, and free of pedagogical mandates. That is, theyare open to a complete range of pedagogical strategies. They are alsoeasily measured and enjoy widespread support from the public as well asfrom mathematicians and scientists. Nevertheless, in December 1997,Williams sent a sharply worded letter to the California Board ofEducation with an implicit threat to withdraw $50 million worth of NSFfunding to districts in the state unless the Board rejected this set ofmathematics standards (Appendix A). California's Board refused to yieldto Williams' threat, and his superior, Neal Lane, Director of the NationalScience Foundation at the time, sent a letter in January 1998reinterpreting and downplaying Williams’ threats (Appendix B), possibly


in response to questions raised about Williams’ letter in the press and inCongress.

Although California’s Board of Education stood firm againstWilliams’ attempt to direct state policy on matters of pedagogy,curriculum, and standards, in other states NSF-funded programs areclearly in control of the development of educational components thathave traditionally been state and local responsibilities. For example, inTexas, the SSI not only uses its $2 million per year to develop the statemathematics and science frameworks, it “assumed responsibility for themanagement and redesign of the state’s discretionary K-12 EisenhowerProgram,” and it explicitly and specifically mirrors the NSF itself bycreating “novel incentive programs to encourage (1) school districts toredeploy their Title 1 and Compensatory Education funds to supportimplementation of Standards-compatible integrated math, science andliteracy curricula; and (2) higher education faculty to link theireducational activities more closely to the state’s reform agenda.” InTexas, NSF has empowered a new bureaucracy that is using the leverageof NSF money not only to take charge of state education programs andpolicies but also to steer the state, school districts, and the faculty at thestate’s universities in particular educational directions with respect topedagogy and curriculum.6 The third section of this chapter offersfurther details on the Texas SSI.

Thus, without public discussion and with little fanfare, NSF SystemicInitiatives have turned on its head the process by which state and localschool policy decisions on matters of standards, curriculum, andpedagogy are made. Whereas decisions were previously made in statesand local districts by local citizens subject to election and recall, they arenow made by federal employees who are essentially anonymous and notaccountable to the people who are most affected by their actions.

Promoting Educational Policies and Programs of Unproven Efficacy

The reforms “encouraged” by the NSF Systemic Initiatives programbear as close examination as does the way in which its state, urban, andrural initiatives use their funds to leverage control of decision making onwhat have traditionally been state and local educational matters. Thereare good reasons even for those favoring a larger role for the nationalgovernment in the effort to improve mathematics and science education

294 Standards Wars

in this country to oppose the particular educational componentspromoted by the Systemic Intitiatives program.

Like most educational programs, the Systemic Initiatives began inresponse to real problems and serious problems, in this case the lowacademic performance of American students in mathematics and science,and the notable achievement gap between certain minority students(chiefly African American and Hispanic) and other students. Althoughthe general educational philosophy underlying the Systemic Initiativesprogram had long been supported by NSF, the initial SSIs were givensubstantial freedom to develop their own strategies for reform. As theprogram evolved, the guidelines became more and more explicit,culminating in 1996 with the release of what NSF calls the “Six Drivers”of systemic reform:7

Driver 1: Rigorous, standards-based instruction for all students, and the

curriculum, professional development, and assessment systems to support that

instruction.

Driver 2: A unified set of policies that facilitate and enable Driver 1.

Driver 3: A unified application of all resources to facilitate and enable Driver 1.

Driver 4: Mobilization of the full community of stakeholders on behalf of

facilitating and enabling Driver 1.

Driver 5: Increased student attainment in science, mathematics, and technology.

Driver 6: Reduction in attainment differences between those traditionally

underserved and their peers.

Taken at face value, it is hard to disagree with these “drivers,” especiallyDrivers 5 and 6, the long-range educational goals. Of the other fouritems, Driver 1 is the primary operational statement, all the rest supportDriver 1. Thus it is critical to understand exactly what is meant byDriver 1 in order to understand the nature of the Systemic Initiativesprogram. Fortunately, this release elaborates what it means by“standards-based instruction,” as well as what it views as effectiveinstructional practice, allowing the public to judge if the NSF educationalvision is what it wants. It contains the following pedagogical beliefs“based on an understanding that learning is an active process wherein thelearner is the full participant, not a passive recipient:”

• All children can learn by using and manipulating scientific andmathematical ideas that are meaningful and relate to real-world situationsand to real problems.


• Mathematics and science are learned by doing rather than by passivemethods of learning such as watching a teacher work at the chalkboard.Inquiry-based learning and hands-on learning more effectively engagestudents than lectures.

• The use and manipulation of scientific and mathematical ideasbenefits from a variety of contributing perspectives and is, therefore,enhanced by cooperative problem-solving.

• Technology can make learning easier, more comprehensive, andmore lasting.

• This view of learning is reflected in the professional standards of theNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the American Associationfor the Advancement of Science, and the National Research Council ofthe National Academy of Sciences.

As these statements make clear, NSF expects Systemic Initiativeawardees to implement programs that emphasize group-based discoverylearning, the use of “manipulatives” (items such as blocks, beads, anddice in mathematics class), and the use of technology, such ascalculators. Although this list of pedagogical desiderata is devoid ofreference to actual mathematical or scientific content, the final bulleteditem makes clear that the NSF view of appropriate pedagogy comesfrom, or is supported by, the standards documents put out by NCTM, aswell as AAAS and NRC. In order to judge the quality of this NSFprogram, therefore, we need to know more about both the instructionalmethodologies it endorses and the quality of the standards it uses todefine academic content.

From NSF’s willingness to mandate specific instructional practices,one might be tempted to conclude that there is a clear consensus amongcognitive psychologists, supported by well-designed, large-scale studies,that these practices are head and shoulders above all others. This is notthe case. Not only is there no research-based consensus to this effect,cognitive psychologists do not believe there are substitutes inmathematical learning for practice and for a well thought throughsequence for instruction based on the structure of the discipline, notevents in the outside world or students’ idiosyncratic interests. AsSteven Pinker, a noted neuroscientist at MIT, discussed in his book Howthe Mind Works:8

296 Standards Wars

The…way to get to mathematical competence is similar to the way to get to

Carnegie Hall: practice. Mathematical concepts come from snapping together old

concepts in a useful new arrangement. But those old concepts are assemblies of

still older concepts. Each subassembly hangs together by the mental rivets called

chunking and automaticity: with copious practice, concepts adhere into larger

concepts, and sequences of steps are compiled into a single step. Just as bicycles

are assembled out of frames and wheels, not tubes and spokes, and recipes say

how to make sauces, not how to grasp spoons and open jars, mathematics is

learned by fitting together overlearned routines. Calculus teachers lament that

students find the subject difficult…because you can't do calculus unless algebraic

operations are second nature, and most students enter the course without having

learned the algebra properly and need to concentrate every drop of mental energy

on that. Mathematics is ruthlessly cumulative, all the way back to counting to

ten.

The ascendant philosophy of mathematical education in the United States is

constructivism, a mixture of Piaget's psychology with counterculture and

postmodernist ideology. Children must actively construct mathematical

knowledge for themselves in a social enterprise driven by disagreements about

the meanings of concepts. The teacher provides the materials and the social

milieu but does not lecture or guide the discussion. Drill and practice, the routes

to automaticity, are called “mechanistic” and seen as detrimental to

understanding.

(Constructivism) ignores the difference between our factory-installed equipment

and the accessories that civilization bolts on afterward. Setting our mental

modules to work on material they were not designed for is hard. Children do not

spontaneously see a string of beads as elements in a set, or points on a line as

numbers…and without practice that compiles a halting sequence of steps into a

mental reflex, a learner will always be building mathematical structures out of

the tiniest nuts and bolts, like the watchmaker who never made subassemblies

and had to start from scratch every time he put down a watch to answer the

phone.

Not only does the NSF program directive explaining Driver 1 ignore,if not downgrade, all traditional forms of learning such as practice, it alsoignores, if not downgrades, the benefits of teacher-directed whole classinstruction. Nevertheless, reviews of mainstream research that include 1)studies comparing alternative teaching methods, 2) basic research incognition, learning, and other areas of cognitive psychology, and 3)


international comparisons suggest that methods other than thoseencouraged by NSF are more effective. These more effective methodsinclude teacher-directed whole class instruction, clarity in the goals ofeach lesson and the key points of the lesson, clarity in presentation,review, repetition, rapid feedback, and practice.9 Whether or not NSF-advocated methods are effective in some situations, there is no research-supported consensus establishing them as integral components of a defacto national curriculum in mathematics and science education, nevermind as the sole components.

Just as the NSF Systemic Initiatives Program has chosen to endorse aparticular set of instructional methods and effectively excluded all others,it has chosen to endorse particular sets of “standards” to address thecontent of science and mathematics. In mathematics, as we have seen,NSF puts the NCTM standards on a pedestal. This endorsement has ledto a particularly confusing situation. Advocates of “systemic reform” inmathematics usually use the words “standards-based” to refer not just tothe disciplinary content of the NCTM standards but also to thepedagogical principles recommended in this standards document. Thesepedagogical principles emphasize the value of guessing rather thangetting right answers, favor learning based on student interest andinquiry instead of on direct instruction, and de-emphasize the learning ofmathematical content in favor of empty reasoning processes. Thus, aphrase that once had a limited but clear meaning pointing mainly todisciplinary content in mathematics has come to refer to an educationalphilosophy encompassing particular pedagogical approaches andcurricular configurations. This is what the “standards-based” learningpromoted in Driver 1 now entails. This confusion can, intentionally orunintentionally, mislead educated people into supporting “standards-based” programs that they might not favor if they understood everything“standards-based” brings in its wake. As the standards wars in Californiahave demonstrated, many people can support a K-12 curriculum inmathematics based on a set of clear and demanding content standards andat the same time reject a curriculum promoting only the specifics ofDriver 1.

As the above discussion suggests, it is important to note some of thedetails of the NCTM standards because they define the content of NSF-advocated mathematics programs. The NCTM standards are striking in anumber of ways.10 First, they differ substantially from previouslyaccepted ideas about needed mathematical content. This is most notable

298 Standards Wars

in the “less emphasis” lists. These are lists of mathematical content thatNCTM feels should be given “less emphasis” in school mathematics.These de-emphasized items include the teaching of traditional algorithmsfor basic arithmetical operations, paper and pencil calculation, logicaldeduction and proof, and analytical methods in general. The actualcontent standards of the standards also contain few clear statementsabout what students should know, do, and understand at any level. Theyapply to gradespans, not individual grades, virtually guaranteeingcurricular differences from school to school and from program toprogram. The content standards that are there tend to be loosely wordedand speak in broad generalities rather than mathematical specifics.Finally, the NCTM standards are dedicated to inquiry-based learning andthe constructivist philosophy described under Driver 1 and in Pinker’scomments. Just as the classroom practices promoted by Driver 1 havebeen criticized, so, too, have the NCTM standards been criticized, byparents,11 mathematicians,12 and others knowledgeable aboutmathematics education.13 In striking contrast, as we noted earlier,California’s new Mathematics standards offer standards that are specificto each grade, clear as to mathematical content, and devoid ofpedagogical imperatives.14

What the NSF vision for mathematics means in the classroom can beseen in the textbooks and instructional programs that it “encourages.”Table 2 lists “NSF-approved” programs for the New York City USI,15 aswell as additional programs advocated by the Los Angeles USI. Nearlyall of these programs are committed to an extreme version of discoverylearning, a constructivist philosophy, and a radical interpretation of theNCTM standards, including constant availability of calculators starting atkindergarten, extreme de-emphasis of paper and pencil calculation, andde-emphasis of analytical and deductive methods. Although theseprograms are strongly supported by some teachers, they have alsogenerated significant public outcry from parents, especially those whoactually know mathematics and use it in the real world.16

For example, MathLand, an elementary school program, lacks studenttexts and does not present standard algorithms for multiplication anddivision in any of the elementary school grades. It relies heavily oncalculators, and has a near total commitment to discovery learning,including “invented algorithms” for multiplication and division.17 Whenit was implemented in the Department of Defense Overseas Schools,which serve approximately 81,000 students, there was an immediate and


Table 2. NSF-Approved Mathematics Curricula as Reported by the New York CityUSI

ElementaryInvestigations in Number, Data, and Space (Dale Seymour Publications)VOYAGER, A Mathematical Journey Using Science and Language Arts (VoyagerExpanded Learning, Inc.)Everyday Mathematics (Everyday Learning Corporation)MathLand (Creative Publications)Real World Mathematics (Addison Wesley Longman)

Middle SchoolGrade 7 AlgebraConnected Mathematics Program (Dale Seymour Publications)Seeing and Thinking Mathematically, MathScape (Creative Publications)Math in Context: A Connected Curriculum (Britannica Educational Corporation)Six Through Eight Mathematics (STEM) Math Thematics (McDougal-Littell/HoughtonMifflin)Mathematics Through Applications Projects (IRL, MMAP Project)

High SchoolApplications/Reform in Secondary Education (ARISE) (Consortium for Mathematics andApplications)Interactive Mathematics Project (IMP) (Key Curriculum Press)Core-Plus Mathematics Project (Everyday Learning Corporation)Math Connections (The Learning Team)

Additional High School Programs Approved for Use by the Los Angeles USICollege Prep Math (CPM) (College Prep Math)Integrated Math (McDougal-Littell/Houghton Mifflin)

significant drop in student performance across all ethnic groups and anincrease in the gap between the scores of white and Asian students andthose of students of other ethnic groups.18 A similar drop in test scorestook place after the introduction of MathLand into the Santa Barbara,California schools. Investigations in Number, Data and Space, anotherelementary school program, also lacks student texts, is completelycommitted to discovery learning and invented algorithms, and does notteach second grade students how to do such critical mathematicaloperations as borrowing and carrying when adding and subtracting.19

At the middle school level, NSF-approved programs continue to becommitted to discovery or project-based learning and give studentsinsufficient or inadequate materials with which to acquire the skills and

300 Standards Wars

knowledge necessary for success in algebra 1, the key course in a highschool mathematics program. Connected Mathematics Program is onesuch middle school program. Although some key topics that areprerequisites for algebra receive some coverage, the amount of timespent on irrelevancies (such as writing in journals about imaginarybicycle trips) is so high that the depth and practice of what is important islimited. The program’s worth is further eroded by the constantavailability of calculators, which eliminates the need for students tounderstand key concepts and manipulations.20 The threat of introducingthis program contributed to a parent uprising in at least one schooldistrict.21

At the high school level, there is a continuing emphasis on discoverylearning and a significant de-emphasis of algebraic skills and logic.Indeed, one program, Interactive Mathematics Project, has candidlynoted that all items listed for “less emphasis” in the NCTM standards,such as manual calculation and proof, were completely eliminated.22

Many key topics are presented in ways that are unlikely to lead to a highlevel of mastery, while introduction of the quadratic formula, a topicfundamental to high school algebra, is delayed until the twelfth grade.23

Integrated Math 1, 2 and 3 has been criticized as being seriously lackingin key content areas, ill-designed for mastery learning, full of contrivedproblems, and unlikely to prepare students for mathematics-basedscience courses or college mathematics.24 The Core-Plus MathematicsProject generated massive resentment among the students who were theexperimental subjects during early implementation. Many studentsfound themselves ill-prepared for college, even though they came fromhighly educated homes and had a high likelihood of success.25

What Accounts for the Support of Unproven Educational Ideas?

The emphasis on constructivist pedagogical methods by NSF andNCTM, as well as by the authors of Systemic Initiative-approvedinstructional programs, raises the question why so many people in somany groups can support them in the absence both of a large body ofconsistent evidence from high quality research and a national consensuson what is educationally effective. If, as we suggest, these methods areflawed, why do they receive so much support from so many educators?An analogy with the attitudes of many educators toward theconstructivist counterpart in reading instruction—WholeLanguage—may be useful. An approach to beginning reading that


encourages context-based guesswork, Whole Language was stronglysupported by reading educators in the schools and teachers colleges inthe 1980s and became the favored approach to beginning reading inschools of education by the 1990s, to judge by the conferenceproceedings, professional publications, and public pronouncements ofthe International Reading Association and the National Council ofTeachers of English, the two major organizations for reading teachers.Whole Language came to be seen as an ill-advised approach to beginningreading only after a whole generation of children fell short in readingskills and a large number of mainstream reading researchers and linguistsshowed not only that its theoretical base was flawed but also that therewas little methodologically sound research to support it. Even so, manyeducators continue to stress a Whole Language approach and downplaythe usefulness of systematic phonics instruction in beginning reading.26

Thus, we note that many educators have been advocating andimplementing constructivist pedagogical methods in other subject areasas well in mathematics and science education without a body of soundresearch evidence to support them.

Although one cannot read the minds of others, there are reasons whyconstructivist ideas about learning are promoted so regularly andenthusiastically in this country. As E.D. Hirsch notes, romantic ideasabout how children learn have a century-long history in our educationschools.27 America is particularly partial to constructivist ideas ineducation because the image of the creative and even iconoclasticindividual is very much a part of our national identity. What could bemore American and more liberating than discovering for oneself, in one’sown way, the great ideas of mathematics and science? That thisphilosophy fails in the classroom and leaves students unprepared fortruly creative problem solving at high levels does not seem to reduce itsappeal.

A second reason for the strength of constructivist methods ineducation is more disturbing. A current strain of thought suggests thatnon-Asian minorities and women need to be taught in ways involvingless emphasis on deductive and analytical methods and more emphasison inductive, intuitive, constructivist methods because of gender andracial/ethnic differences in learning. As one example, in a radiodiscussion associated with NCTM’s 1996 annual meeting, Jack Pricespeaking in his role as NCTM President commented that “women, forexample, and minority groups do not learn the same way” as “Anglo

302 Standards Wars

male(s).” “(T)hey learn differently.” In clarification of his remarks, Pricewent on to reinforce stereotypic views of men, women, and minorities:“males, for example, learn better deductively in a competitiveenvironment…the kind of thing that we have done in the past…we havefound with gender differences, for example, that women have a tendencyto learn better in a collaborative effort when they are doing inductivereasoning.” 28

Price is not alone in his stereotypic views, disguised as they may bein academic jargon. For example, educational researchers have also comeup with broad stereotypes of African Americans, as suggested by a reporton “African American students’ mathematical problem solving” by tworesearchers in mathematics education. As they note: “Studies of learningpreferences suggest that the African American students' approaches tolearning may be characterized by factors of social and affectiveemphasis, harmony with their communities, holistic perspectives, fielddependence, expressive creativity, and nonverbal communication…Research indicates that African American students are flexible and open-minded rather than structured in their perceptions of ideas.”29 Thesecharacteristics imply that African Americans cannot engage in rigorousanalytical thinking and articulate their ideas in academic prose.Similarly, a writer on American Indian education asserts that NativeAmericans are “right brained” and implies that they cannot engage instructured forms of learning because the “functions of the left brain arecharacterized by sequence and order while the functions of the right brainare holistic and diffused.”30

The author of an article in a March 1999 issue of The New Republicsuggests that at least some African American educators themselves rejectconstructivist methods and assumptions.31

Many pipeline programs are driven by untested ideological premises, such as the

idea that black students can learn only from black teachers or that their “learning

style” is somehow fundamentally different from that of other kids. It doesn't help

that most of the efforts are poorly evaluated, if at all.

Still, a few things are known. The programs that are most successful at producing

black scientists are at historically black colleges and universities. Though they

enroll only 25 percent of black college students, these schools grant 40 percent of

black science and engineering degrees, and they account for six of the ten

undergraduate schools that send the largest number of blacks on to earn science

doctorates. Private and public, small and large, these colleges vary enormously--


making it difficult to generalize. Yet, if Xavier University of Louisiana is any

guide, the key is an emphasis on basics—both the basics of science and the

basics of how to get through college.

A small school with a modest endowment and entering freshmen who are

relatively poorly prepared, Xavier combines support services with rigorous

academic standards. Introductory chemistry and biology courses set the tone. The

faculty members have created their own textbooks, which walk students step by

step through subjects, introducing basic vocabulary, emphasizing and

reemphasizing key concepts, even dictating exactly how to work problems.

“These kids need to learn some basic things before branching out,” pre-med

adviser J.W. Carmichael explains. “I don't leave anything out. I take them

through every single detail…People say we're hand-holding. Yeah, we are,

particularly in the early years.”

Summing Up

NSF’s Systemic Initiatives seem to be designed to enable the federalgovernment to foreclose further local decision making on policies,programs, and materials for mathematics and science education. In orderfor state and local education agencies to secure NSF funds for improvingmathematics and science education, they must be willing (at leastimplicitly) to adopt particular academic standards, instructional methods,textbooks, curricular configurations, and classroom managementpractices that are, at best, controversial and unsupported by a nationalconsensus on their efficacy. At worst, these specific programcomponents, like the use of Whole Language as a beginning readingmethodology, exclude the use of other, effective methods for meetingchildren’s educational needs.

In order to provide a national perspective on NSF’s SystemicInitiatives Program, we turn first to a description of the development andconsequences of the Los Angeles Systemic Initiative, an example of asystemic initiative at the local level.

The Los Angeles Systemic Initiative

Instituted in 1995, the second year of the National Science FoundationUrban Systemic Initiative Program, the Los Angeles Systemic Initiative(LASI) exerts a powerful influence on a district whose 1997-1998 budgetexceeded $5.8 billion. At $3 million per year, NSF contributes, through

304 Standards Wars

funds for its Urban Systemic Initiative (USI), only about one twentieth ofthe school district’s budget. Yet, for a mere $3.79 per student, NSF hasbeen able to make fundamental and, as we will show, damaging changesin the nation's second largest school district. The ambitious scope of theLos Angeles Systemic Initiative is described in its Project Summary:

The Los Angeles Unified School District, in partnership with Los Angeles

professional, business, scientific, and education communities and through the

vehicle of the Los Angeles Systemic Initiative, has reformed the content, delivery,

and learning of mathematics, science, and technology in its 722 schools, affecting

more than 792,000 students.32

In order to lay the foundation for deep systemic changes within theLos Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), LASI solicited thesupport of powerful local and national organizations at its inception. LosAngeles Mayor Richard Riordan's office agreed to act as one of its publicrelations arms. Mike Roos, chief executive officer of LEARN (the LosAngeles Educational Alliance for Restructuring Now), was enlisted as anadvisory board member, along with representatives from many otherorganizations, including several universities in the Los Angeles area. Inconcert with Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy ofSciences, and educators from two other California cities, LASI plannedthe creation of a “California Coalition” to implement a total reform ofscience education in the state. LASI also gained access to resourceswithin LAUSD, including ten science and technology centers forprofessional development of teachers, as well as to KLCS Channel 58television.

Gaining Control

The first task for LASI was to institutionalize academic standards inLAUSD that facilitated NSF's goals for its systemic initiatives. LASIwas singularly successful. LAUSD's official adoption of academicstandards reflecting NSF's educational philosophy in 1996 was awatershed event in the LASI strategem. A 1998 NSF report boasted that,“in Los Angeles, USI accountability became the framework for a majorpolicy initiative establishing benchmarks and standards in all subjectareas for the entire school system.”33

With its mathematics standards adopted in Los Angeles, the next stepfor LASI was to implement NSF-approved curricula. One clear reason


for LASI to insist on NCTM-based mathematics standards is that theycomport with the weak mathematics curricula advanced by the LASIproject. But even with LASI-supported standards in place, furthersystemic changes were necessary in LAUSD in order to implement allthe components of NSF's educational philosophy. The 1997 LASIannual report makes this clear:

LAUSD's urban systemic initiative is well under way with its efforts to renew

and unify districtwide instruction using standards-based curricula. These

curricula are characterized by hands-on, inquiry based, problem-solving,

integrated/coordinated, student-teacher interactive instruction in math, science,

technology for grades K-12. These efforts are supported and strengthened by

needs-based staff development, increased communication among teachers and

staff, changes in administrative policies that are essential for student access to the

systemic benefits, and checks on progress and process at preselected gates in the

system's superstructure. 34

LASI and NSF versus California

While NSF was institutionalizing NCTM-based mathematics standardsin Los Angeles, flanked by stratospheric proclamations, the state ofCalifornia was moving resolutely in the opposite direction. In December1997, the California Board of Education adopted the MathematicsAcademic Content Standards, developed with the assistance of fourStanford mathematics professors, Gunnar Carlsson, Ralph Cohen,Stephen Kerckhoff, and James Milgram.35 The California statemathematics standards were broadly supported by the Californiamathematics community. An open letter directed to the chancellor of theCalifornia State University system, circulated by David Klein, wasendorsed by one hundred California college and university mathematicsprofessors, including the chairs of mathematics departments at leadinguniversities and several world-renowned mathematicians. JaimeEscalante, of “Stand and Deliver” fame also added his personalendorsement to this open letter calling on California State UniversityChancellor Reed “to recognize the important and positive roleCalifornia's recently adopted mathematics standards can play in theeducation of future teachers of mathematics in the state of California.”36

In addition, in March 1998, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundationpublished an independent review of the mathematics standards from 46

306 Standards Wars

states and the District of Columbia as well as Japan. California'smathematics standards received the highest score, outranking even thoseof Japan.37 The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) also conducteda study of K-12 academic standards for all states, the District ofColumbia, and Puerto Rico. California was the only state in itsNovember 1998 report to receive a perfect score of check marks underthe statements “clear, specific, and grounded in content” for standards inthe four content areas: mathematics, science, English, and socialstudies.38

Immediately after the California Board of Education adopted its newmathematics standards in December 1997, leaders of NSF's SystemicInitiative in Los Angeles counterattacked. They recognized that theirideological house of cards could be toppled by California’s evolvingcontent-focused educational policies. LAUSD Superintendent RubenZacarias, with assistance from LASI in “framing...the issues,” releasedan Informative to LAUSD board members, dated December 8, 1997,asserting that “the LAUSD standards include and go beyond the StateBoard standards” (see Appendix C). The Informative further explainedthat:

The high expectations for student achievement set forth by the [LAUSD] school

board and the Superintendent will be met by implementing the standards-based

curriculum recommended by the Los Angeles Systemic Initiative.

and

If textbooks are written to meet, but not surpass, the expectations in the State

Board standards, then LAUSD teachers will be forced to supplement the

programs to deliver the rigorous, challenging mathematics program our students

deserve.

As we can see from this response, the NCTM-based LAUSD standardswere defended as more demanding than the content standards approvedby the California Board of Education. NSF's Assistant Director forEducation and Human Resources, Luther Williams, also joined in thecounterattack against California's K-12 academic standards. Serving alsoas head of the Systemic Reform office, Williams wrote a letter, datedDecember 11, 1997, to the California Board of Education excoriating thenew California mathematics standards (see Appendix A). Williamsexplained that the Board's decision to adopt the mathematics standards


“vacates any serious commitment to elevating problem-solving andcritical thinking skills.…” He charged that: “The Board action is,charitably, shortsighted and detrimental to the long-term mathematicalliteracy of children in California.” Citing NSF support in excess of $50million for systemic initiatives in California, including the one in LosAngeles, Williams warned that the NSF might terminate its support, and,speaking for the National Science Foundation, he chastised, “We viewthe Board action in California with grave disappointment and as a lostopportunity for the cities we support—indeed, for the entire state.”

In the year following the state adoption of the new Californiamathematics standards, members of Mathematically Correct and otherstried unsuccessfully to persuade the LAUSD Board of Education toreplace its inferior mathematics standards with the new Californiastandards.39 The state’s standards are voluntary for school districts,although yearly STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting)examinations and state-approved textbooks are to be based upon them.Transcripts of the relevant board meetings are available on theMathematically Correct website and they record unbending support forthe LAUSD mathematics standards by the LASI advisors to the LAUSDBoard. At the request of one board member, David Tokofsky, two of theauthors of this chapter, together with other mathematicians, developed adetailed comparison of the LAUSD mathematics standards with theCalifornia standards. The comparison established beyond any possibledoubt the superiority of the California standards and the almost comicalshortcomings of its LASI-supported rival.40

Dumbing Down the Standards and the Curriculum

What are the weaknesses of the LAUSD mathematics standards?Beyond the canonical rhetoric, they have little mathematical content. Inaddition, they are redundant between grade levels and vague.41 Forexample, with no elaboration whatsoever, one typical LAUSDbenchmark requires students to “make connections among relatedmathematical concepts and apply these concepts to other content areasand the world of work.” The LAUSD mathematics standards stipulatethe use of calculators and other “appropriate technology” before the endof third grade, thus undermining mastery of arithmetic. The word“triangle” does not appear at all in the document, only one of many keyterms that are missing. By design, trigonometry and all other algebra II

308 Standards Wars

topics do not appear in any grade level benchmarks. The intentionalomission of these topics from the LAUSD mathematics standards waseventually acknowledged in an Informative dated June 4, 1998 fromLAUSD Superintendent Ruben Zacarias to the LAUSD School Board,and it demonstrates the vacuity of LASI platitudes.42 The low level ofLASI standards belies NSF’s superlatives about critical thinking, real-world applications, “standards-based” education, and “world-class”standards. The original LASI grant proposal even gushed, “We furtherbelieve that the conceptual understanding of algebra and physics can andmust begin with the entry of that student in kindergarten.”

The high intensity verbiage surrounding NSF’s educationalphilosophy can be disarming to an unsuspecting public. But parents andmathematical scientists in Los Angeles found common cause in pointingout the importance of basic skills—missing in the LAUSD mathematicsstandards—for laying the foundation for deeper scientific understanding.Glamorless necessities like elementary addition and subtraction facts findlittle support in a NSF-supported education program which, without atrace of irony, can advocate “conceptual understanding of algebra andphysics” for entering kindergarten students.

The mathematics curricula supported explicitly by LASI are asdeficient as its standards. Indeed, the “standards-based curriculumrecommended by the Los Angeles Systemic Initiative” explicitlyincludes some of the worst mathematics programs in existence. In aletter critical of California’s new mathematics standards, dated January21, 1998, Superintendent Ruben Zacarias wrote: “MathLand, which washighly recommended by the California Instructional ResourcesEvaluation Panel, is one of the LASI recommended curricular programs”(see Appendix D)

The 1997 LASI annual report also affirmed LASI's support ofMathLand and the Connected Mathematics Program, described in thefirst section of this chapter, for elementary and middle school programs.LASI explicitly endorses shallow curricula at the high school level aswell. The goal is to purge LAUSD of algebra I, geometry, and algebraII/trigonometry, referred to as “traditional math,” and replace it by amish-mash known as “integrated math.” At a June 15, 1998 meetingheld at Nobel Middle School in LAUSD, LASI unveiled its plans to anaudience of approximately 100 skeptical parents and a few journalists.43

Using overhead projectors, LASI personnel explained that within fiveyears all middle and high schools in LAUSD would be teachingintegrated mathematics only, using one of the following series: Core-


Plus Mathematics Project, Interactive Mathematics Project, CollegePreparatory Math, or Integrated Math. The plan is not to allow the morelogically organized “traditional math” at all. According to RobertHamada, mathematics coordinator for the district's Los Angeles SystemicInitiative, integrated mathematics had already been instituted in themajority of LAUSD schools by the summer of 1998. Objections to“integrated math” by parents in attendance on the grounds that the topperforming schools in LAUSD—including national AcademicDecathalon champions—teach only traditional mathematics werebrushed aside by LASI personnel.

The incompatibility of traditional mathematics curricula with theNSF-sponsored variety was acknowledged in the 1997 LASI report:

Math teachers want credit for both absolute and comparative growth. They have

analyzed their staff development model and revised it to include coaching for the

3-year integrated, comprehensive math program that bumps heads with the

algebra-geometry tradition. They anticipate that test scores may fall a bit before

they rise and stay up because it takes 3-5 years to see real effects of curricular

reform that builds from lower grades to higher.

The last sentence of this quotation from the LASI report is a tacticalfinesse designed to fight off evidence-based criticisms. Test scoresmight fall, we are told, in advance of the “real effects of the curricularreform.” But how is anyone to know whether student performance isgetting worse in ways that will lay the groundwork for laterimprovement, or whether student performance is getting worse becausethe programs are worse and it will never get better? The near absence ofmathematical content in the NSF-sponsored curricula weighs heavily infavor of the latter contingency.

Protecting Mediocrity

LASI also created evaluation strategies to curb teacher resistance.According to its grant proposal:

Teacher performance will be evaluated by pre- and post-program surveys

designed to identify changes in the following: instructional strategies and the

amount of classroom time spent in direct lecture, student activities,

investigations, demonstrations, cooperative learning, and direct textbook work.

310 Standards Wars

In addition, teachers are encouraged to develop their own systems for self-

monitoring, using portfolios and journals to record their professional growth.

With the immanent STAR exam tied to the demanding Californiamathematics standards, classroom teachers have felt pressure to improvetest scores, and some worry that the LASI program won't do it. This wasacknowledged in a grant proposal to the California State UniversityChancellor's office from the Northridge campus, undertaken with LASIcollaboration. The funded grant proposal to retrain middle schoolmathematics teachers warned: “There is general panic about the SAT 9[STAR exam] and teachers are reverting to traditional methods ofteaching rather than uncovering the mathematics in the curriculum theycurrently have.” “[U]ncovering the mathematics” in the NSF-sponsored“curriculum they currently have” would be more easily carried out bymagicians than mathematicians, as it is nearly invisible.

LASI's influence on education extends to the state level in otherways. The selection process for district representatives to the CaliforniaState Science Curriculum Framework Committee is a case in point. Thiscommittee is charged with writing a state guide for the implementationof the science standards; the guide deals with pedagogical issues andserves as a blueprint for textbooks. The committee consists of K-12teachers and members of other public constituencies.

Douglas Lasken, an LAUSD elementary school teacher and unionchapter chair for his school, sought permission from the district to applyfor a position on the Science Curriculum Framework Committee basedon his understanding and strong support of the new California ScienceStandards and his experience giving inservice science lessons for otherteachers. He needed a district administrator’s signature on hisapplication indicating that LAUSD would pay for a substitute teacherwhen he attended required meetings in Sacramento. The signature wouldhave been perfunctory if Lasken had embraced the teaching philosophiesof LASI. But LASI personnel had testified against the state sciencestandards before they were approved, and Lasken had supported thosestandards.

However, the district administrator, who was associated with LASI,refused to give Lasken the signature until dozens of Lasken's supportersrequested help from LAUSD Board member David Tokofsky. Thedistrict administrator then signed Lasken's application, which wassubmitted to the appropriate state agency. It was only later that Laskenlearned that this administrator had secretly rescinded the signature,


signaling the state agency that no substitute teachers were available.Meanwhile, other LAUSD candidates sympathetic to LASI’s educationalphilosophy proceeded with their applications unimpeded. Lasken wasprevented from participating on the Framework Committee. Otherteachers who supported the new science standards and who applied to theFramework Committee, had experiences similar to Lasken’s.

Thus, a single Urban Systemic Initiative Program, like LASI, not onlyhas the power to impose the NSF agenda on a local school district,including weak standards and curricula, it can even influence educationalpolicies at the state level. As the next section of this chapterdemonstrates, influence in the reverse direction can be of greaterconsequence. The Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative is the prototypicalexample. It imposed its leadership on the entire state educationapparatus, affecting every school district in the state.

The Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative

In 1994, the National Science Foundation (NSF) awarded Texas a four-year grant of $2,000,000 annually to implement a Statewide SystemicInitiative (SSI). For the matching funds required by NSF, the TexasLegislature approved an Appropriations Bill designating $1,000,000annually to the SSI. The legislation clearly defined the parametersintended for the SSI. Funding was to be provided for discretemathematics and science programs in the schools contingent onevaluations by the Commissioner of Education demonstrating theirsuccess.44 Legislators did not suspect that they were funding a federallydirected program that would replace the state’s authority in education,supersede community control of schools, and construct a systemwielding the most centralized control over educational policy everestablished in the state. 45

Over the past four years, the SSI has come to direct a variety of stateprograms, provides leadership for a vast array of agency partnerships,and influences all aspects of education in Texas. Curricula, instructionalpractices, textbooks, assessment, professional development of teachers,teacher evaluation, teacher certification, and preservice teacher educationall now fall under the purview of the Texas SSI. The Texas SSI alsoclaims to exert influence over the largest and most important sources ofmoney for education in the state “in ways that reflect our mission.”46 Itdoes not exaggerate when describing itself as “wearing the mantle of

312 Standards Wars

leadership in Texas” and playing a “central role in the reform ofeducation” in its Program Effectiveness Reviews of 1997 and 1998.

The changes in classroom instruction, state policy, and educationalgovernance now being implemented in Texas by the SSI reflect thedesign for the nationwide system of educational policies and programscreated by the federal legislation passed in 1994: Improving America’sSchools, Goals 2000, and School-to-Work.47 This legislation promotescomprehensive change in state educational systems based on theconstructivist standards created by national professional and educationalorganizations in the late 1980s and early 1990s. To encourage states toadopt uniform educational policies and programs based on thesestandards, NSF was charged to assist the U.S. Department ofEducation.48 When the federal legislation was passed in 1994, NSF had aready-made vehicle—its Statewide Systemic Initiatives Program—forconveying specific policies and programs to the states. Originallycreated in 1991 to help states improve mathematics and scienceeducation, the Statewide Systemic Initiatives Program was redesigned todeliver the Department of Education’s particular vision of standards-based educational reform to the states.

The changes in classroom instruction, state policy, and educationalgovernance introduced by the Texas SSI define the form and content ofwhat federal agencies, schools of education, and others refer to as“standards-based systemic reform.” The means used by the SSI toacquire authority over educational policy and programs in Texas, and theoutcome of these efforts so far, reflect a vision of education andgovernment that is very different from the one we have traditionallyenjoyed.

Acquiring the Three R’s: Respectability, Relationships, andResources

In 1994, the Texas SSI was established in the Charles A. Dana Center, aresearch facility of the College of Natural Sciences at the University ofTexas at Austin. The director of the Dana Center became and remainsthe SSI’s Principal Investigator and Executive Director. The executivedirector of the Texas Business and Education Coalition agreed to serve asvice chairman of the SSI’s board. For over ten years, the Coalition hasbeen recognized as the most powerful non-governmental force in stateeducation. Because the University of Texas at Austin is highly respectedas a center for educational research, these initial associations assured


public reception of the Texas SSI and created an image for this initiativeas a legitimate leader in the state, serving education with academicindependence and scholarly objectivity.

The SSI was initiated into state educational policy through contractswith the Governor’s Office and the Texas Education Agency (TEA).The SSI forged an intimate relationship with the TEA by naming thestate commissioner of education as Co-Principal Investigator of theSSI.49 In 1995, the TEA awarded the SSI the contract to develop newstate curriculum standards for mathematics and science.50 Later, theTEA contracted with the SSI to develop services and products to supportthe new curriculum standards and, in 1998, the TEA designated the SSIas the Center for Educator Development in Mathematics and Science.51

Since 1995, the SSI has brokered formal working relationships withthe Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the State Board forEducator Certification, the Texas Legislature, the Texas Ed FlexCommittee, the College Board in Texas, the Texas Education Network,the Texas Business and Education Coalition, the 20 Education RegionCenters, the Texas Engineering Foundation, the Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory, regional School-to-Work Partnerships, theTexas Educational Productivity Council, the Alliance School Network(Texas’s 22 largest school districts), various citizen groups, andprofessional associations of mathematics and science teachers, schoolboards, principals, and superintendents. According to the Texas SSI’sAnnual Reports for 1997 and 1998, it has established partnerships withalmost every state agency and organization focusing on education inTexas. These relationships enable the SSI to coordinate its work acrossthe various components of state education. Today, the Texas SSI is:52

•Directing the state-sponsored professional development of allprimary and secondary teachers in mathematics and science;

•Developing guidelines for state teachers colleges preserviceprograms for teachers of mathematics and science, funding teacherscolleges to implement the guidelines, and conducting preservicemathematics and science programs.

•Assisting the TEA in the development of state assessments (TAASand end-of-course exams) for primary and secondary education;

•Creating services and products for schools to support mathematicsand science reform;

314 Standards Wars

•Managing the state’s K-12 Eisenhower Program funds forTEXTEAM, which trains teachers to be catalysts for reform in theirschools;

•Working in cooperation with the State Board for EducatorCertification to revise rules governing new teacher evaluation andcertification; and

•Managing the state’s Comprehensive Assistance Center forElementary and Secondary Education Act Programs (STAR) in directingthe expenditure of state and federal compensatory education funds.

In addition, according to its 1998 Program Effectiveness Review, theSSI is coordinating its activities across the myriad of state initiativesmanaged by the Dana Center and mobilizing the resources of allinitiatives in support of SSI objectives. Initiatives managed by theCenter include: Texas Head Start, the TERC School-to-Career Program,the Texas Education Network, the Center for Community Engagementand Volunteerism, Title I School Improvement Project, HomelessEducation, AmeriCorps, and the Accelerated Schools Program.Coordination between the SSI and the Dana Center has blurredoperational boundaries and confounded public perception oforganizational distinctions. This ambiguity has been meticulouslycultivated by the SSI. Publications, such as its 1998 ProgramEffectiveness Review, advise the public to view the SSI within the broadcontext of the Dana Center. Many publications identify various functionsof the SSI and Dana Center as the combined organization, DanaCenter/SSI. Integrated with a state agency and surrounded by a varietyof state programs, the SSI has successfully masked its federal identityand the source of its particular objectives.

Since a core purpose of the NSF programs is providing minority andeconomically disadvantaged students what NSF believes is educationalequity,53 gaining acceptance by minority communities is fundamental tosuccess. For the Texas SSI, securing this support has been especiallyimportant because Hispanics and African-Americans compose 55% ofthe student population. The 1997 Annual Report published by the SSIdeclared its commitment to access and equity, promising to reduce theachievement gap between student populations. One of the SSI’s primarymeans for conveying “standards-based reform” to minority students hasbeen the Title 1 Schools Improvement Program, which has furnishedgrants to over 100 schools in the state with high concentrations ofdisadvantaged students. Through other initiatives described as public


service, the SSI has garnered even more minority support andinvolvement for programs based on constructivist standards. Anillustrative program, Emerging Scholars, was featured in a nationallysyndicated column in the Washington Post, in which William Raspberrycompared the SSI’s executive director with Jaime Escalante (given fameas a hero for minority education by the movie Stand and Deliver). Arelationship with the Intercultural Development and ResearchAssociation, a statewide organization devoted to the educationaladvancement of Hispanic and economically disadvantaged students, hasfurnished the SSI with direct access to minority policy-makers and theopportunity to engage them in a reform of mathematics and scienceeducation based on the constructivist standards NSF is promoting.Publishing articles in the Association’s monthly newsletter, the SSI haswidely disseminated the message that instruction based on constructiviststandards is specifically designed to meet the special educational needsof minority students.54

While developing the strategic relationships and programs required toinfluence state-level changes, the Texas SSI simultaneously works as aself-described “catalyst for change” in all local school districts. As notedin the SSI’s 1997 Annual Report, “the implementation of a standards-based curriculum in every classroom, for every child” is its drivingobjective. Various strategies to accomplish this goal are described by thereport. A cadre of trainers is deployed by the SSI to serve asintermediaries with schools in the development and maintenance ofchanges based on constructivist standards, introducing programs,influencing policy, and training teachers. The 800 member cadre(recruited from regional centers, the largest school districts, UrbanSystemic Initiatives, Rural Systemic Initiatives, and teachers associatedwith Connected Mathematics Project) has trained almost 4,000 teachersacross Texas to use instruction based on constructivist standards. TheSSI also introduces mathematics and science programs developed byNSF. Offering incentive grants, the Texas SSI has implemented NSF-developed curricula in 609 schools in the state. The SSI is working tointroduce all NSF-developed curricula throughout the state, but it ispresently concentrating on scaling up the Connected MathematicsProject in Texas as the prototype of a middle school curriculum based onconstructivist standards.55

The SSI has assembled a network of almost 100,000 individuals inTexas (trainers, activists, action team members, associates, and

316 Standards Wars

subcontractors) to work in all of the 1044 school districts.56 Nearly one-third of Texas’s 3,700,000 students use instructional materials sponsoredby the NSF.57 The SSI anticipates that efforts to introduce NSF-endorsedprograms into every classroom in Texas will be increasingly successfulbecause “as the newly designated Center for Educator Development forboth mathematics and science, we are in an ideal position to promote andprepare districts for adoption of curricula.”58

The SSI provides direction and support for other NSF and federalInitiatives in Texas. The NSF’s Urban Systemic Initiatives in Dallas,San Antonio, and El Paso, as well as the new Rural Systemic Initiative,coordinate activities and resources with the Texas SSI. Funding from thePew Charitable Foundation enabled the SSI to develop the Working-to-Learn Summer Institutes that train teachers in the methodology requiredby the federal School-to-Work law, a methodology also based onconstructivist standards.59 Contracting with TERC, a Massachusetts-based research and development organization, the SSI has created aSchool-to-Work Team to assist School-to-Work Partnerships indeveloping constructivist-oriented curricula.60 The SSI is also workingwith the Capital Area Workforce Development Board to introduceConnected Mathematics Project as a model curriculum for School-to-Work initiatives in Austin area schools.61 Helping school districts toimplement the new federal Comprehensive School Reform DevelopmentProject, an initiative that specifically funds NSF-developed mathematicsand science programs,62 enables the Texas SSI to significantly expandinstruction based on constructivist standards.

How the Texas SSI Promotes and Funds Systemic Reform

The vast array of programs directed or coordinated by the Texas SSI, theinnumerable programs directly influenced through partnerships orcooperative efforts, and the complex network of organizationalrelationships just described all contribute to systemic change. In the pastfour years, the Texas SSI has worked to coordinate all policies,programs, agencies, organizations, funding, personnel, and materials intoa coherent framework promoting a constructivist approach to learning.The coordination or alignment of all the components of the educationalsystem creates a tight infrastructure, one component reinforcing another.

Textbook adoptions by the schools in the next few years will serve tomeasure the influence of the systemic reform introduced by the SSI. In1998, its influence became evident with the SSI’s effort to constrict the


adoption of mathematics textbooks to a NSF-developed program. InTexas, the purchase of textbooks by school districts is underwritten bythe state if the textbook selected meets the expectations for learningestablished by the state curriculum standards. The TEA reviewstextbooks and publishes a list of textbooks meeting the instructionalobjectives established by the state mathematics curriculum standards. Inthe fall of 1998, immediately prior to the State Board of Educationadoption of the textbook list, the Texas SSI published a list ofmathematics textbooks for schools listing only NSF-sponsored textbooksand developed a state conference to showcase these textbooks, most ofwhich were not included on the state textbook list.63 The SSI also issueda newsletter to schools that identified the SSI as the state’s Center forEducator Development (CED) with responsibility for helping schoolsimplement the state curriculum standards, and emphasized the necessityof selecting the appropriate textbooks.64 This newsletter advises schoolsthat selecting textbooks on the state’s list might not be the best choice,offers the assistance of SSI-trained staff at Education Region Centers,and encourages schools to use the SSI guideline in selecting textbooks.65

The SSI’s Instructional Materials Analysis and Selection guideline openswith advice for schools to select textbooks based on NCTM standardsand provides a checklist that includes criteria based on these standardsthat textbooks should contain to qualify for selection.66

While the direct influence over textbook selection is enormous, theindirect influence is far more extensive. Every education policy in thestate has been shaped by the SSI to reinforce the selection of textbooksbased on NSF-endorsed standards. Assessment of student learning,school ratings based on student assessment, instructional approachestaught in professional development programs for teachers, instructionalmethods used for evaluating teachers, instructional approaches used totrain prospective teachers, and teaching demonstrations required forteacher certification—all are now based on constructivist standards. Theselection of a knowledge-oriented textbook would conflict with allaspects of educational policy. To help make sure that schools wouldmake the correct choice, the SSI’s 1998 Annual Report noted: “Wetrained more than 60 mathematics leaders from around the state to usethe SSI-developed Instruction Materials Evaluation and SelectionProcess Manual in district textbook adoption processes so that the newtextbooks adopted for the next decade will be standards-based.” It

318 Standards Wars

remains to be seen how many schools select NSF-endorsed mathematicstextbooks.

Systemic reform of education is clearly incomplete without thealignment of fiscal resources. The Texas SSI has accomplished this byinfluencing the largest and most important sources of state and federalmoney for education “in ways that reflect our mission,” according to its1997 Annual Report. The report claims the SSI influences theexpenditure of approximately $2 billion dollars annually of federal andstate monies (designated for programs such as Head Start, Title I,Compensatory Education Program, and the Technology InfrastructureFund). As well as aligning state and federal education monies to servethe objectives of the SSI, direct funding of almost $18,000,000 dollars isacquired annually by the SSI from a variety of sources, including theUniversity of Austin, NSF, local school districts, and private or corporatedonations, according to the 1997 Program Effectiveness Review. Of the$18,000,000 acquired by the SSI in 1998, more than $4,000,000 wasprovided by local school districts as matching funds for SSI programs,contributed from their Title I monies for improving the education ofdisadvantaged students.

How the Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative PromotesConstructivist Instructional Methods

Policies, guidelines, and reports published by the SSI and partnerorganizations in Texas provide a clear definition of education based onconstructivist standards in its application to teaching and expectations forlearning. The details in the following documents identify the primaryrole that instruction, not curricular content, plays in systemic reform andreveal the extent to which systemic reform rigidly scripts instructionalmethods.

The Mathematics TEKS Toolkit, Clarifying Activities, published bythe Texas SSI on the Texas Education Network Web Site67 offersteachers methods to translate the state curriculum standards formathematics into classroom instruction. Sample lessons illustrate theactivities teachers should use to introduce specific state standards forgrade-level instructional expectations. For example, the first statestandard for kindergarten mathematics (K.1) requires students to usenumbers to name quantities. The lesson furnished for this standard hasstudents holding a handful of small objects, naming the number of eachobject, and recording the process of counting by adding the objects on a


calculator. This lesson incorporates several principles of systemicreform. Calculators are introduced as the first and primary method ofrecording and computing numbers. Numbers and counting are introducedin the context of a complex problem (for kindergartners). Students areexpected to construct for themselves the meaning of numerical symbolson the calculator, as well as the algorithm of addition by counting, as thefirst lesson in mathematics presented in elementary school.

The Mathematics Center for Educator Development, Mathematicsand Instruction, published by the Texas SSI on the Texas EducationNetwork Web Site,68 provides instructional methods for implementingthe state mathematics standards. Position papers advocateconstructivism, noting that students learn best when constructing theirown learning instead of receiving direction or information from teachers.Ability grouping of students is identified as harmful to student learning.Cooperative grouping (where students teach one another), as well asgroup grading, is recommended. Teachers are advised to encouragestudents to use calculators (because technology removes the necessityfor students to learn supposedly low-level skills). The use of concretemanipulatives is encouraged to augment the use of mathematicalsymbols in every grade level. Teachers are discouraged from providingstudents with correct answers or asking them to seek correct answers.And teachers are exhorted to avoid presenting mathematics as anysequence of mathematical knowledge or skills. As a resource forcurriculum, only the specific mathematics programs developed by NSFare listed.

The Mathematics Center for Educator Development, MathematicsAssessment, published by the Texas SSI on the Texas Education NetworkWeb Site, dispenses any notion that assessments are to be conductedprimarily for teachers to use for evaluating student achievement. Thissection clarifies that assessments should be used as an instructionalstrategy to provide students with an opportunity to evaluate themselves.An open-ended problem (with no right answer), an investigation, aproduct or a product are identified as the different forms assessmentshould assume.

The Guidelines for Mathematical Preparation of ProspectiveElementary Teachers, published by the Texas SSI on the TexasEducation Network Web site,69 identifies the mathematical content thatpreservice teachers are required to master for both classroom instructionbased on the state curriculum standards and the examination for teacher

320 Standards Wars

certification. It also identifies the instructional methods teachers shoulduse. The instructional section begins with an admonition against rotememorization, mathematical rules, mathematical definitions, andmathematical formulas, and a commendation for constructivist learning.Calculators are praised for removing computational burdens.Cooperative groups and investigative projects are identified as importantclassroom strategies. The section concludes with a warning againstteaching mathematics as a linear progression of topics and skills, therebydismissing centuries of carefully constructed systems of mathematicsdeveloped by the best minds of every culture.

The Mathematics Center for Educator Development, ProfessionalDevelopment and Appraisal System for Texas Teachers, published by theTEA on the Texas Education Network Web Site, provides schools with arecommended plan for teacher evaluation, incorporating the criteriarequired by state law. This plan identifies the instructional methods thatteachers must demonstrate in the classroom, including promotingstudents toward self-directed learning, introducing facts and skillsthrough complex problem-solving, and connecting mathematics withother subjects and work. The degree to which teachers comply withnational and state policies is also an evaluation criterion.

Equity in the Reform of Mathematics and Science Education,published in 1994 by the Southwest Educational DevelopmentLaboratory of Austin, Texas, describes the instructional methodsintroduced by “systemic reform” and NSF’s various Statewide SystemicInitiatives. This report begins by claiming that traditional instructionalmethods erect a barrier to the education of minority students, and itdescribes the special educational needs of minorities. The instructionalstrategies that supposedly hurt minorities are identified, includingstandardized tests, ability grouping, curricula that emphasize rightanswers, competitive activities, teacher-centered classrooms, andremedial instruction. And it defines the instructional methods thatminorities supposedly require for educational success, including mixedability classroom grouping, constructivist curricula, cooperative learninggroups, project-based instruction, and authentic assessment. The reportadmits that education programs based on constructivist methods lack asubstantial empirical research base to support them, but it does notsuggest that this failing should logically restrict the use of theseexperimental methods on minority students.

The Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Mathematics,published by the TEA, lists the standards of learning for students in


kindergarten through grade 12. Instructional objectives are expressed asperformances that students are expected to demonstrate at each grade(although almost one-quarter of the expectations are repeated year afteryear). As recommended by NCTM’s standards, instructional objectivesfocus not on correct answers or specific facts but on process (called“higher order skills” to make thinking processes sound preferable toknowledge and as something not necessarily requiring knowledge). Forexample, fifth grade students are expected to “ use multiplication to solveproblems involving whole numbers (no more than three digits time twodigits without technology).” The dominant operative verb is “use,” not“solve,” so students can fully comply with this instructional objective byusing multiplication to solve a problem whether or not they solve itcorrectly. This example also demonstrates the reliance on calculators formore complex, although arduous, computations. There is not one singlestate standard for mathematics, from kindergarten through grade 12, thatexplicitly requires students to produce a correct answer. Only in threeinstances are students required to memorize or acquire mentalautomaticity of facts or skills. In kindergarten, students are required tocount to 100 (although students may meet this expectation by countingincorrectly or using a calculator); in grade 2, students are required torecall basic addition facts (sums to 18); and, in grade 4, students arerequired to recall multiplication facts through 12 x 12.

In addition, every instructional objective is expressed as anapplication of learning that relates to everyday experience. For example,eighth grade students are expected to “use the Pythagorean Theorem tosolve real-life problems” and “use geometric concepts to solve problemsin fields such as art and architecture” (although the standards do not offerany clues as to what this could mean). Approximately one-fourth of eachgrade-level expectation requires students to demonstrate mathematicalcompetencies that are separate and distinct from mathematical academiccontent, such as these examples from grade 8:“identity and applymathematics to everyday experience;” “validate his or her conclusions;”“select tools such as real objects, manipulatives, paper/pencil, andtechnology or techniques such as mental math, estimation, and numbersense to solve problems:” and “use a problem-solving model thatincorporates understanding the problem, making a plan, carrying out theplan, and evaluating the solution for reasonableness.”

322 Standards Wars

Evaluation of Systemic Reform and Constructivist InstructionalMethods

The instructional methods associated with “systemic reform” representan educational approach known as “progressivism.” Despite theinference that these methods are new, they have been used in Americanclassrooms throughout the twentieth century under a variety of names.These instructional methods were, and continue to be, introduced associal reforms, intended to make education more equitable. A teachingguide, Moving into the Mainstream, published on the Texas SSI statecurriculum web site, explains that they have vital importance becauseequal opportunity and equal access have proven inadequate in furnishingeducational equity to minorities.70 This guide claims that discoverylearning (constructivism), cooperative learning, learner-focused (student-directed) classrooms, contextual (problem-solving) instruction, everydayapplications (applied learning), project-based (thematic) instruction,connections (interdisciplinary learning), and authentic (performance-based) assessment have proven to be effective strategies in “leveling theplaying field” to derive equal academic outcomes. To the contrary,empirical research has produced substantial evidence attesting to theharm that “progressive” instructional methods inflict on all students’academic achievement.71 And these instructional methods most harmminority students, according to Project Follow Through, a 25-year studyconducted by the U.S. Department of Education to determine the mosteffective instructional strategies for disadvantaged students.72

The immediate impact of systemic reform on mathematics instructionin Texas is difficult to evaluate. Assessments of state standardsconducted recently by national organizations identify Texas’s newstandards as average (or mediocre, depending on the perspective). The1999 Education Week Quality Counts rated Texas’s standards as B+(although it gave an F to Iowa, the state producing the highest SATscores in the nation). The Fordham Foundation’s 1998 State MathematicsStandards rated Texas’s mathematics standards as B (giving 12 stateshigher ratings). The Council for Basic Education’s 1998 GreatExpectations? Defining and Assessing Rigor for Mathematics andEnglish Language Arts rated Texas’s mathematics standards also as B(giving 15 other states a higher rating).

Because the new curriculum framework was not officiallyimplemented until January 1999, and the first selection of textbooksaligned with constructivist standards has yet to be completed, the effect


of the new curriculum framework on student achievement cannot beevaluated at this time. It is possible, however, to review the impact ofthe instructional policies embedded in the NSF programs introduced toTexas over the past four years by the SSI.

Annual reports published by the Texas SSI proclaim success for theNSF programs, contending that these programs have increased studentachievement in Texas. This claim should be closely examined for severalreasons. Most of the individual schools employing NSF curricula useauthentic assessment—non-standardized, subjective evaluations ofstudent achievement. SSI reports rely on scores from the state academicproficiency test, TAAS (Texas Assessment of Academic Skills). Withfew exceptions, TAAS scores have climbed annually for every school inthe state. The SSI has yet to publish data that indicates a statisticallysignificant difference in TAAS scores between students in the 609schools engaged in SSI programs and non-participating students. Nostudy of Texas SSI programs has been conducted by any independentand disinterested researcher. In short, no valid and reliable data havebeen generated to date in Texas to support SSI’s claims for academicsuccess. The absence of quantitative data for SSI programs in Texasreplicates the situation in other states. A five-year analysis of SSIssponsored by NSF itself could not find enough test score data to supportclaims that NSF-endorsed mathematics and science programs raiseacademic achievement or reduce the achievement gap between studentpopulations.73

Student scores on national tests provide mixed news about themathematical achievement of primary and secondary school students inTexas. Although a 1998 study of NAEP data indicates significantmathematical gains for Texas fourth and eighth grade students from1992-1996, with a significant narrowing of the achievement gap betweenminority and white students,74 only 25% of fourth grade students and21% of eighth grade students score at or above the proficiency level.Although the TEA also reports regular improvements in TAAS scoresacross the grades, and a significant shrinking of the achievement gapsince 1995, two research studies conducted independently in 1998revealed serious flaws in the TAAS grade 8 mathematics test; it assessescontent and difficulty about two grades below grade 8 and in effect doesnot assess performance in the top half of the achievement curve.75 Athird study published in 1999 confirmed that the standards formathematical learning in Texas are one to two years lower than most

324 Standards Wars

states in grade equivalence.76 Although both NAEP and TAAS scoresshow a closing of the achievement gap between student populations, thecombined SAT score for Texas remains unchanged at 995 since 1996,and the achievement gap slowly widens. Since 1996, mean SAT scoresfor Hispanics and African Americans in Texas have declined two points,and combined SAT scores in 1998 place Texas as the seventh loweststate in the nation. The disparity between the scores on the SAT, acollege preparatory exam, and the scores on TAAS, a minimumproficiency exam, strongly suggests that educational practices in Texasconstrain high-level achievement, especially in the higher grades andmost especially for minorities.

How the Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative Is ChallengingCommunities and the State for Control of Education

The curricula and methods of instruction for mathematics and sciencebeing implemented as part of systemic reform in Texas are supported bya new infrastructure of policy and governance created by the SSI.77

Operating as the axis of this infrastructure, the SSI prescribes specificeducational practices, specific uses for educational dollars, and specificeducational policies in the state. As a result, systemic reform hascompromised the ability of parents, teachers, and elected public officialsto shape day-to-day classroom instruction or develop alternativeeducational policies and programs. The following examples illustratehow the Texas SSI constrains informed or independent local and stateeducational decision-making. The first deals with its behind-the-scenesinfluence on Texas’s standards.

In late 1996, the state released drafts of the revised standards for K-12, allowing Texans 30 days for review prior to State Board of Educationadoption. The public was not officially notified of the review untilseveral weeks into the scheduled time period, and then only because of aletter to Texas newspapers written by a teacher on one of the statewriting teams. Public outcry ensued. Criticisms were levied againstboth the abbreviated time for review and the extreme vagueness of theproposed standards, especially in mathematics. Several members of theState Board requested public review be extended and experts consulted.The Governor subsequently described the proposed standards as “ mush”and extended time for public review. In the months following, andcontinuing until the standards were adopted in late 1997, the State Boardof Education was deluged with citizen testimony criticizing the influence


of national standards documents on the new Texas expectations forlearning. Much public concern was voiced that national organizations,such as the National Center for Education and the Economy, workedwith writing teams assembled by the TEA to shape state standardsaccording to the standards developed by NCTM and other nationalprofessional organizations. Much public concern was voiced that Goals2000 funding had influenced the new state standards for learning. TheTEA denied that the proposed standards were based on nationalstandards and denied any influence on the proposed standards by thestate’s Goals 2000 Plan, any national organization, or any federal agency.The TEA repeatedly stressed that the new standards were written byTexans for Texas.

Representing concerns of their constituents, several members of theState Board of Education continued to press the TEA for informationabout these influences and their adverse impact on state expectations forlearning. Newspapers throughout the state published the TEA’sdescription of these inquiries as a reflection of paranoia about a federalconspiracy. High profile legislators threatened to draft bills replacing theelected board with an appointed board if these board members persistedin what was described as obstructing education reform.

In the meantime, attribution of the Texas SSI as contract writer forthe state standards in mathematics and science (listed on the first publicdraft) was removed from subsequent drafts. Then, in response to arequest by the State Board of Education for a list of the writersresponsible for the standards, a list was provided that identified the SSIonly indirectly; it designated specific members of the Dana Center ascontributing writers working with a selected group of Texas teachers.Not until late 1998 were facts available to the public; the SSI, funded byGoals 2000 for the express purpose of developing the mathematics andscience components of the state’s Goals 2000 Plan,78 had indeeddesigned the state’s standards, based on guidelines developed by NCTMand the National Research Council.79 Misrepresentation of the origin ofthe standards had caused members of the board to give false reassuranceto the public and prevented some members from representing constituentinterests effectively. Full disclosure might well have prevented approvalof these standards as well as legislation filed in the 76th TexasLegislature to replace the elected state board of education with anappointed board (a vote is pending at this time).

326 Standards Wars

Systemic reform is also disenfranchising teachers from decisionmaking on classroom instruction in Texas. Historically, teachers haveserved on school textbook selection committees and furnished localschool boards with recommendations best suited to student needs. In1999, school districts either discontinued the custom or limited theauthority of teachers on textbook selection committees. After distributinga review of mathematics textbooks to school district textbook selectioncommittees throughout Texas, I received dozens of calls. Teachersacross the state relayed concerns that textbook selection had beenpredetermined to select NSF-endorsed textbooks and described a varietyof strategies used to “skew” selection: The textbook selection guidelinepublished by the SSI ruled out any instructional materials other thanNSF-endorsed textbooks; SSI-trained teachers directed school textbookselection committees; school administrators distributed a NSF-sponsoredtextbook analysis and advised teachers that those with the highest ratingsmet Statewide and Urban Systemic Initiative goals; school administratorsadvised teachers that the Urban Systemic Initiative would withdrawfunding if the NSF-endorsed textbooks were not selected; and one schoolboard provided teachers with a notice from an Urban Systemic Initiativeidentifying the two acceptable choices for adoption. These teachers alsoreported little or no support for these NSF-endorsed textbooks.

Systemic reform is eroding the ability of parents to participate ininformed ways in local school decisions as well. In early 1998, a groupof parents in Plano asked their local school board for permission towithdraw their children from the Connected Mathematics Program, aNSF-endorsed middle school mathematics program, because the childrenwere failing to learn basic mathematic skills. The parents asked thedistrict board to provide a traditional instructional alternative. When thedistrict board refused, parents began an extensive investigation of theConnected Mathematics Program. They uncovered a report issued bythe TEA indicating that the Connected Mathematics Program satisfiesonly slightly more than half of the state requirements for grade levelinstruction. They also discovered that its teacher’s manual warns thatstudents may score lower on standardized tests of computational skillsthan students in traditional classes. The parents requested data from theSSI that would support the academic claims of the ConnectedMathematics Program and were given only the 1998 scores from TAASfor schools using the program even though the program had been used byseveral schools for several years. The parents then obtained recordsdocumenting the solicitation of schools in their district by the Dana


Center/SSI to implement the Connected Mathematics Program as anexperimental program and determined that their local school board hadnever reviewed or voted on the program.80 The parents also discoveredthat statutory protections of parental rights in education would not applywhen children participate in programs sponsored by the Texas SSI.Federal law exempts NSF from any obligation to obtain parental consentwhen children take part in educational experiments.81 And as anauthorized agent of the Secretary of Education, the SSI is also exemptfrom any obligation to obtain parental consent for collecting andreleasing personally identifiable information about children.82

Refused the ability to withdraw their children from the SSI programby the district board and exempted from an appeal to parental rights byfederal legislation, the Plano parents hired legal counsel and appealed tothe State Board of Education in January 1999. The parents argued thatthe State Board should share responsibility for resolving their problembecause the SSI is authorized by the TEA to provide educational servicesto school districts and to implement mathematics programs that are to beevaluated by the Commissioner of Education. They appealed to theCommissioner to conduct an evaluation of Connected MathematicsProgram as charged by law. In response, the State Board advised theparents to resolve the problem with their school district and described theproblem as one of local, not state, control, subject to the authority of thelocal community. No response was furnished by the Commissioner ofEducation, and to date, the parents have yet to be notified of any stateevaluation of the Connected Mathematics Program.83 An editorial by aPlano parent in the Plano Star Courier raised questions about theaccuracy of the director’s claim that the Dana Center does not endorseadoption of any instructional programs and noted the State Board’sresponsibility to ensure that schools offer a curriculum based on thestate’s standards.84 Nonetheless, the Plano parents must rely on the SSI’sCo-Investigator, the Commissioner of Education, to review SSI programswith objectivity. The difficulty these parents encountered in obtainingfull information from the SSI or about the programs it supports suggestshow the SSI views accountability to the public.

Finally, systemic reform may curtail the development of maverickeducational programs that defy the constructivist approach to curriculaand instruction prescribed by the Texas SSI. Arguing against replacingcontent-based pedagogy with experimental programs based on loweracademic standards for minority students, Manuel Berriozabal, a

328 Standards Wars

mathematician at the University of Texas at San Antonio, developedTexPREP in 1979. His goal was to open the door to higher education forminority students by disproving the stereotype that minority studentscannot succeed in content-oriented courses. Since 1979, TexPREP hasprovided middle and high school students with substantive programs inmathematics and science that offer direct instruction in a structuredclassroom environment. In Texas today, TexPREP is offered in 23schools and engages 3,000 students. Over the past 20 years, almost16,000 students have enrolled in TexPREP. The high school graduationrate for TexPREP students is 99%, 93% of TexPREP students areadmitted to college, and 87% graduate from college.85 AlthoughTexPREP has proven the most successful educational program forminority students in Texas, and eight other states have replicated theprogram, TexPREP is now struggling to secure fiscal resources. Its statefunding has regularly decreased in recent years, and its future isuncertain in Texas.

The common threads in the experiences of these parents, teachers,and elected officials in the examples above indicate that the Texas SSIhas little or no responsibility to the public. The SSI, in fact, has nostatutory obligation to provide full and factual disclosure of information,to implement programs that reflect public interest, and to engageconstituents in decision-making. Without statutory accountability, theSSI can bypass established processes of educational governance andeffectively diminish the authorities of individuals statutorily (orcustomarily) invested with educational decision-making, described inTexas as “local control.”

In Texas, local control means decisions are made by locally electedofficials with knowledge needed to represent the unique interest of theircommunities. Over the past decade, legislators in Texas have reducedthe authority of state officials and agencies in order to locate primarycontrol of education in communities. Legislation pared regulations fromthe Texas Education Code, trimmed both staff and responsibilities fromthe TEA, and sheared authorities from the State Board of Education.Having established new K-12 standards and graduation requirements, theprincipal state authority for public education is now limited to enforcingschool accountability for academic results, while school districts wieldauthority for classrooms and day-to-day learning.

Reduction of state authority in Texas was intended to augment andstrengthen the authority of local communities for educational decision-making. The Texas SSI, however, found that deregulation had created a


political environment “ideally suited for systemic reform,” as noted in its1998 Annual Report and Strategic Plan. The SSI’s 1997 Annual Reportboasts “We have built, in a state known for its spirited resistance tocentralized leadership and central control, a powerful structure” andexplains how the transition of power from state to community left Texasvulnerable. “Rapid and dislocating changes in the system’s loci of powerand authority have created unprecedented opportunities to shape andreshape instructional practice, to influence allocation of resources, and todevelop new...policy at the state and local levels.” The new role ofparents, teachers and elected officials on school boards is to supportNSF’s vision of systemic reform, according to A Report on theEvaluation of the National Science Foundation’s Statewide SystemicInitiatives. It frankly admits that “systemic reform calls for districts andschools to jettison their traditional role as regulators of local practice andassume the new role of technical assisters.”

Transferring authority from a locally elected board to a federalinitiative is not a choice that people in Texas or any other state wouldprobably make consciously. A 1997 national opinion poll conducted bythe Center for Education Research in Washington found that over 70% ofAmericans supported little or no involvement of the federal governmentin public education.86 And a national poll conducted in 1998 by PublicAgenda, a non-profit, non-partisan research organization, indicated thatonly 22% of Americans think decisions about curricula and instructionshould be made by the federal government, while only 14% thinkofficials in Washington make good educational decisions.87

Public opinion research also indicates that the vast majority ofAmericans oppose the curricula and instructional practices endorsed bythe SSI and systemic reform. A series of national polls conducted from1996 to the present by Public Agenda has documented overwhelmingpublic support (exceeding 85%) for schools to devote more time formathematics instruction and to increase the emphasis on mathematicalfacts and calculation by hand. It has also documented correspondingopposition to the supposedly new teaching methods endorsed by the SSIprograms, especially in mathematics where 90 % of the public rejects theuse of calculators and believes that teaching should focus more onmathematical facts.88 NSF has acknowledged that the efforts of SSIs togain public support for its vision of systemic reform has enjoyed limitedsuccess, and increased public awareness has, in fact, provokedconsiderable public opposition, such as in California.89

330 Standards Wars

Concluding Remarks

In this chapter we have examined the National Science FoundationSystemic Initiatives Program and the role it is now playing in K-12mathematics and science education in this country. In the first section,we examined this program’s goals and educational philosophy, quotingdirectly from documents written or authorized by Luther Williams,Assistant Director of the Education and Human Resources Division ofNSF and head of the office for Systemic Reform. We also pointed outthe limitations in the mathematics standards and textbooks it endorses, aswell as the sudden declines in student achievement in instructionalprograms using these textbooks. In the second section, we described thedevelopment and components of a prominent Urban Systemic Initiative,documenting weaknesses in the policies, standards, programs, andmaterials it has implemented in this large school district. In the thirdsection, we examined the components of a Statewide Systemic Initiative,documenting its ongoing efforts to consolidate educational authority andpolicy in the state, to promote its educational philosophy in every aspectof education in the state, and to limit informed and meaningfulparticipation by teachers, parents, and elected officials in decision-making on matters of curriculum and instruction. These three sectionsdemonstrate the many flaws in the design of this NSF program and howthese flaws are efficiently carried to the states and local school districtsthat participate in the program.

Our analysis of the NSF Systemic Initiatives Program raises twoissues that require scrutiny by governors, Congressional and statelegislators, state boards of education, local school boards, and parents, aswell as by others seeking to improve the quality of mathematics andscience education in this country. The first is the desirability of thisprogram’s purposes and goals, the second is the warrant for theeducational philosophy it is promoting.

NSF has clearly spelled out its plan to reshape and control the totalnetwork of state and local educational policies that determine a schooldistrict’s academic standards, assessment mechanisms, classroommanagement practices, curriculum configurations, instructional methods,textbook choices, preservice and inservice teacher training programs, andteacher certification requirements through the conditions it applies to thegranting of modest amounts of money to school districts and states andthrough the ensuing infrastructure it sets up. Yet, there have been no


local, state, or national discussions on how this NSF program is affectingthe principle of local and state control of education. Is the small amountof money it offers worth the significant loss in autonomy and educationalflexibility it seems to entail? NSF’s educational policies seem to havebeen decided upon by only a very small number of appointed officials inthe U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation.

In addition to its attempt to direct the use of local educationalresources and local decision-making without informed discussion in thelocal community, NSF has promoted standards and programs in scienceand mathematics that are not supported by a broad-based consensusamong professional experts or knowledgeable members of the public.They are in fact not supported by any body of research evidence, arecontrary to the findings of mainstream research, and may lower, notimprove, student achievement in science and mathematics.

We urge a discontinuation of the Systemic Initiatives Program andthe use of its funds for other programs in mathematics and scienceeducation. We particularly urge that NSF drop its unwarranted relianceon a dogmatic and exclusionary educational philosophy andencourage—and evaluate—a multitude of approaches to mathematicsand science education.

332 Standards Wars

Notes

1 National Science Foundation. “The National Science Foundation's SystemicInitiatives” (http://www.ehrz.nsf.gov/EHR/ESR/index.htm).

2 Mervis, J. “Mixed Grades for NSF’s Bold Reform of Statewide Education.” Science,282 (Dec. 4, 1998) pp. 1800-1805.

3 Mervis, ibid.4 Williams, L. “The Urban Systemic Initiatives (USI) Program of the National Science

Foundation: Summary Update,” July 1998(http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/ESR/reports/963014M.pdf).

5 The California Mathematics Academic Content Standards, 1998(http://www.cde.ca.gov/board/k12math_standards.html).

6 Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative “ Mission”(http://macdns.cc.utexas.edu/ssi/mission/default.html).

7 National Science Foundation. “The National Science Foundation's SystemicInitiatives” (http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/ESR/index.htm).

8 Pinker, S. How the Mind Works. 1997. W.W. Norton & Company, pp. 341-343.9 Hirsch, E.D., Jr. The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them. 1996. New

York, Doubleday, pp 127-175.10 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards

for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,1989 (http://www.enc.org/reform/journals/ENC2280/nf_280dtoc1.htm).

11 Evers, B., Hoffman, H,, Plume, M.A., Polyak, M., Wurman, Z., Steering Committee,Honest Open Logical Debate (HOLD) on math reform. “Suggestions andrecommendations for improvement of 1989 NCTM Standards.” Submitted to theCommisssion on the Future of the Standards, National Council of Teachers ofMathematics, January 15, 1996 (http://mathematicallycorrect.com/holdnctm.html).Also, Quirk, W.G. “The Truth About The NCTM Standards”(http://www.wgquirk.com/TruthK12.html).

12 Allen, F. “A Critical View of NCTM Policies with Special Reference to the StandardsReports” (http://mathematicallycorrect.com/allen1.htm); AMS Association ResourceGroup (ARG) for Revision of NCTM Standards in Mathematics. “Reports of theAMS Association Resource Group on NCTM2000.” Notices of the AMS, February,1998 (http://www.ams.org/notices/199802/comm-amsarg.pdf); Haimo, D.T. “Are theNCTM Standards Suitable for Systemic Adoption?” Teachers College Record ofTeachers College, Columbia University 100, (1) Fall 1998, pp.45-64; Howe, R. “TheAMS and Mathematics Education: The Revision of the NCTM Standards,” Notices ofthe AMS , February, 1998. (http://www.ams.org/notices/199802/howe.pdf); Ross, K.Report from the Task Force on the NCTM Standards, MAA Online, January 27, 1997(http://www.maa.org/past/maanctm2.html); Ross, K. Second Report from the TaskForce MAA Online, June 17, 1997 (http://www.maa.org/past/maanctm3.html); andWu, H.H. “The Mathematician and the Mathematics Education Reform.” Notices ofthe AMS, December 1996 (http://www.ams.org/notices/199612/forum-wu.html),

13 Stevenson, H.W. “Professor Harold W. Stevenson on the NCTM Standards”(http://mathematicallycorrect.com/hwsnctm.htm).


14 The California Mathematics Academic Content Standards, 1998

(http://www.cde.ca.gov/board/k12math_standards.html).15 New York Systemic Intitiative, “Curriculum”

(http://nycusi.org/Curriculum/curriculum.htm).16 Antonucci, M. 'New, new math' has parents crying 'back to basics'

(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/exclusiv/97071). (8.ex.EDUCATION.Quality.MathLand.html). World Net Daily, July 18, 1997; and

“Do you live in a new-new math city?”(http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/citylist.htm).

17 Open Letter by Martin Scharlemann, Chair of the Mathematics Department,University of California, Santa Barbara, October, 1996(http://mathematicallycorrect.com/ml1.htm); Herriot, R. “Palo Alto Parent ComparesThree Reform Texts” (http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/pausd.htm);McArther, D. “An Example of the Low Expectations and Lack of Progression fromThird Grade to Eighth Grade”(http://206.86.183.194/math/McArthurAppendixD.htm); and McArther, D. “Mathematics Reform in Theory and Practice, and its Implications for DoD Students”(http://206.86.183.194/math/McArthurText.htm).

18 McArther, D. “ Mathematics Reform in Theory and Practice, and its Implications forDoD Students” (http://206.86.183.194/math/McArthurText.htm); “MathLand andGlencoe Interactive Mathematics Programs in Department of Defense DependentsSchools (DoDDS)” ( http://mathematicallycorrect.com/dodds1.htm).

19 Herriot, R. “Palo Alto Parent Compares Three Reform Texts”(http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/pausd.htm); and Clopton, P, et al.“Mathematics Program Reviews for Grades 2, 5, and 7”(http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/books.htm).

20 Tsang, B. “CMP at Okemos Middle Schools.”(http://www.nscl.msu.edu/~tsang/CMP.html); Clopton, P, et al. “MathematicsProgram Reviews for Grades 2, 5, and 7”(http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/books7a.htm).

21 “Unofficial Plano Independent School District School Page”(http://www.pisd.org/cmp/index.html).

22 Mackey, K. “An overview of IMP years 1 and 2”(http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/imp.htm).

23 Mackey, K. “IMP: A student’s view with comments”(http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/impkm.htm); Mackey, K. “IMP: A Teacher'sReview for Parents” (http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/kmimp.htm); andDatta, S. “IMP: Manifesto on an Experimental Concept Gone Awry”(http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/impsf.htm).

24 Fogler, D. “A Review of an Integrated High School Mathematics Program”(http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/integrat/htm).

25 Milgram, R.J. “Outcomes Analysis for Core Plus Students at Andover High School:One Year Later” (ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/andover-report.htm).

26 Helfand, D. “Some Professors Resist State's Reform Formula; Education: Manyaspiring teachers are instructed in using whole-language method. Law mandates

334 Standards Wars

phonics.” Los Angeles Times October 25, 1998; and Helfand, D., Smith, D. “Zacariasorders overhaul of new phonics materials; Education: Superintendent acts after 2,500L.A. teachers have already been trained with program that draws on discardedmethods.” Los Angeles Times, March 12, 1999.

27 Hirsch, E.D., Jr. The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them. 1996. NY:Doubleday, pp. 69-126.

28 “Math radio: The debate in San Diego.” Excerpts from the Roger Hedgecock show ofApril 24, 1996 (http://mathematicallycorrect.com/roger.htm).

29 Malloy, C. and Jones, G.M. An Investigation of African American Students'Mathematical Problem Solving, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29,no. 2, March 1998, pp. 143-163.

30 Ross, A.C. Journal of American Indian Education, Special Issue, August 1989.31 Jacoby, T. “ Color Blind: The African American absence in high tech”

(http://www.thenewrepublic.com/magazines/tnr/current/jacoby032999.html), The NewRepublic March 29, 1999.

32 Site Description, Los Angeles Urban Systemic Initiative(http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/ESR/sysinit/angeles.htm).

33 Luther Williams, The Urban Systemic Initiatives (USI) Program of the NationalScience Foundation: Summary Update, July 1998.(http://www.ehr.nsf.gov/EHR/ESR/reports/963014M.pdf).

34 National Science Foundation Program Effectiveness Review for Los Angeles UrbanSystemic Initiative in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, December 9, 1997.Prepared under the auspices of the Los Angeles Unified School District for the LosAngeles Systemic Initiative Office, Division of Instructional Services, Los AngelesUnified School District, by staff in Program Evaluation and Research Branch, LosAngeles Unified School District, and in Vital Research, LLC, an external researchgroup

35 Available at (http://www.cde.ca.gov/board/k12math_standards.html).36 “Open Letter to CSU Chancellor” (http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/reed.htm).37 Ralph A. Raimi and Lawrence S. Braden. (March 1998). State Mathematics

Standards. Volume 2, Number 3. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham.(http://www.edexcellence.net/standards/math.html).

38 American Federation of Teachers. Making Standards Matter 1998. Washington,D.C.: American Federation of Teachers(http://www.aft.org/edissues/standards98/index.htm).

39 Mathematically Correct (http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/).40 Mathematically Correct. “A Comparison of the LAUSD Math Standards and the

California Math Standards” (http://mathematicallycorrect.com/lausdstd.html).41 Los Angeles Unified School District Student Learning Standards, 1996

(http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/offices/instruct/standards/).42 David Klein. “LAUSD's Refusal to Adopt the California Mathematics Standards”

(http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/laagain.htm).43 Victor Mejia. “Fuzzy Fracas.” New Times Los Angeles, July 31, 1998. See also David

Klein. “The Freedom to Agree.” California Political Review, July/August 1998.44 Appropriations Bill of the 75th Texas Legislature, Austin, TX, 1997.


45 A Report on the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation’s Statewide Systemic

Initiatives Program, SRI International, 1998, p.53. It is contended in Texas that theSSI is not a federal initiative; this document confirms that it is a SSI. An article on thisreport, entitled “ Mixed Grades for NSF’s Bold Reforms of Statewide Education,” byJeffrey Mervis, appears in the December 4, 1998 issue of Science.

46 Annual Report, Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative, Austin, TX, 1997, p.6.47 Preparing Students for the Twenty-first Century, National Governors’ Association

Issue Brief, Education Policy Studies Division, April 13, 1998, p.1(http://www.nga.org/Pubs/IssueBriefs/default.asp).

48 Public Law 103-227. Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Title 2. National EducationReform Leadership, Standards, and Assessments, Sec.232. Federal Leadership. Thetestimony of Richard Riley, Secretary of Education, to the Committee on Science,U.S. House of Representatives, July 23, 1997 describes the collaboration between theU.S.Department of Education and the National Science Foundation (FederalDocument Clearing House,1997 WL 11235230).

49 Ibid, p.1.50 Texas, State Profiles, Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation

(http://www.ehr.nsf.gov.EHR/ESR/state/profiles/tx.htm).51 Program Effectiveness Review, Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative, Austin, TX,

1998, p. 3.52 Annual Report, Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative, Austin, TX, 1998, pp.5, 6, 9, 10,

and 19; and Annual Report, 1997, pp.5 -9.53 A Report on the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation’s Statewide Systemic

Initiatives, p.37.54 Math and Science, IDRA Newsletter, Intercultural Development Research

Association, San Antonio, March 1998.55 Annual Report, Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative, 1997, p.9. The SSI testified that

it does not promote any specific program of instruction to school districts, State Boardof Education Meeting, November 13-15, 1998.

56 Ibid, p.7.57 Program Effectiveness Review, 1998, p.13.58 Annual Report, Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative, 1997, p.9.59 Substate Application for Projects Funded under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act

submitted by the Capital Area School-to-Career Partnership to the Texas WorkforceCommission School-to-Careers Office, Austin, TX, June 30, 1998, p.48.

60 Annual Report and Strategic Plan,1998, p.21.61 Capital Area School-to-Work Partnership, Substate Application for Funds, 199762 Guidance on the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program, U.S.

Department of Education, 1998 (http://www.ed/gov/offices/oese/compreform).63 NSF Curriculum Showcase Conference Registration Form, Texas Statewide Systemic

Initiative, Sheraton Austin Hotel, Austin, TX, November 11-13, 1998.64 Recognizing the conflict of interest posed by the SSI’s administration of the CED

while promoting NSF-developed textbooks, the Commissioner of Education warnedthe Dana Center/SSI that these activities should be clearly separated. Correspondenceof November 11, 1998.

336 Standards Wars

65 What It Means to Implement the TEKS, Issue Brief, Texas Statewide Systemic

Initiative, Vol.1, No.1, Fall, 1998.66 Instructional Materials Analysis and Selection for K-5 and 6-8 Mathematics,Texas

Statewide Systemic Initiative, Austin, TX, 1998.67 (http://www-tenet.edu/teks/math).68 (http://www-tenet. edu/teks/math).69 (http://www-tnet cc.utexas.edu/ssi).70 By P.B.Campbell and N.Kreinberg.71 E.D.Hirsch, Jr. The Schools We Need, Why We Don’t Have Them, Doubleday, NY,

1996, pp 127-175.72 Wesley Becker and Siegfried Engelmann, “ Sponsor Findings from Project Follow

Through,” Effective School Practices, Vol. 15, No. 1, Winter, 1996, p.35.73 A Report on the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation’s Statewide Systemic

Initiatives Program. SRI International, 1998(http://www.sfi.com/policy/cehs/edpolicy.html).

74 David Grissmer and Ann Flanagan. Exploring Rapid Achievement Gains in NorthCarolina and Texas . Washington, D.C.: National Education Goals Panel, November,1998.

75 Setting Higher Sights. American Federation of Teachers, Washington, D.C.,1998;Wayne Bishop, David Klein and Paul Clopton, Statewide Mathematics Assessment inTexas, Tax Research Association, Houston, TX, 1998.

76 Paul Clopton, Erica McKeown, et al. Mathematics Program Reviews for Grades 2,5,and 7. Mathematically Correct (http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com).

77 Program Effectiveness Review,1998, p.19.78 Texas, State Profiles.79 Program Effectiveness Review, the Statewide Systemic Initiative, Austin, TX, 1997,

p.2.80 Letter to Susan Modisette, Principal, Haggard Middle School from Darlene Yanez,

Research and Evaluation Specialist, Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative, January 29,1998; and Testimony to the Plano Independent School District Board Hearing of theLevel 1 Complaint related to the Connected Mathematics Program by Don Mills,January 14, 1999.

81 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45 Public Welfare, Volume 3, Chapter VI NationalScience Foundation, Part 690.101 (a) and (b).

82 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act,Subpart D, Section 99.31 (a) 93) (ii).

83 Testimony to the Texas State Board of Education by Kenneth Johnson, Plano, TX,January 8, 1999; and Letter to Chris Patterson, Education Connection of Texas, fromKenneth Johnson, Plano, TX, February 1, 1999.

84 Kenneth Johnson, “Connected Math curriculum should be reviewed impartially.”Plano Star Courier, January 22, 1999; and “New Instructional Materials Approved,”Texas Education News, Vol.15, Issue 37, November 23, 1998.

85 Manuel Berriozabal, “Why Hasn’t Mathematics Worked for Minorities? UMETrends, San Antonio, Vol. 1, No. 2, May 1989; and 1999 Legislative Agenda, TexasPrefreshman Engineering Program, University of Texas at San Antonio, January1999.


86 National Survey of Americans’ Attitudes toward Education and School Reform.87 Public Agenda Online 1998.88 Different Drummers:How Teachers of Teachers View Public Education, Public

Agenda, New York, 1997; Given the Circumstances:Teachers Talk about PublicEducation Today, Public Agenda, New York, 1996.

89 A Report on the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation’s Statewide SystemicInitiatives Program.

Appendix A

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, Virginia 22230

December 11, 1997

Mrs. Yvonne W. LarsonPresident, California State Board of Education721 Capitol Mall, Room 532Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mrs. Larson:

California appeared poised to make an important contribution to the nationaldiscussion regarding the appropriate balance of mathematical problem-solving,procedural skills, and critical thinking with the September, 1997 proposal of theCommission for the Establishment of Academic Performance and ContentStandards. Instead, the decision last week by the California State Board ofEducation, with little or no public input, to adopt alternative standards vacatesany serious commitment to elevating problem solving and critical thinking skillsto K-7 mathematics standards. The Board action is, charitably, shortsighted anddetrimental to the long-term mathematical literacy of children in California.

The wistful or nostalgic “back-to-basic” approach that characterizes theBoard standards overlooks the fact that the approach has chronically anddismally failed. It has excluded youngsters from engaging in genuinemathematical thinking and therefore true mathematical learning, and hasproposed a disproportionate mathematically illiterate citizenry.

338 Standards Wars

The National Science Foundation currently maintains a portfolio exceeding

$50 million in awards to six public school systems in California (East SideUnion, Fresno, Los Angeles, Oakland, Paramount, and San Diego). Thesedistricts are undertaking systemic initiatives to offer their students much greateropportunities to learn and achieve in high-quality, rigorous mathematics andscience. These awards, though only moving into their second and third years ofimplementation, are beginning to stimulate significant gains in mathematics andscience achievements. A growing body of research also shows significantlearning gains elsewhere. You must surely understand that the Foundationcannot support individual school systems that embark on a course thatsubstitutes computational proficiencies for a commitment to deep, balancedmathematical learning.

We view the Board actions in California with grave disappointment and as alost opportunity for the cities we support—indeed, for the entire state. We havefollowed the debate closely. We obviously share your stated interest inimproving the rigor of the mathematics instruction in the state. We disagree,decisively, with the Board's decision to systematically remove components fromthe standards that focus on problem solving and other elements of the rigorousand powerful use and learning of mathematics.

Sincerely,(signed)Luther S. WilliamsAssistant Director

cc. DeLaine Eastin Superintendent for Public Instruction

Appendix B

Office of the DirectorNational Science Foundation4201 Wilson BoulevardArlington, Virginia 22230

January 8, 1998

Mrs. Yvonne W. Larsen


President, California State Board of Education721 Capitol Mall, Room 532Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Mrs. Larsen:

Because science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education at alllevels is an agency wide priority for the National Science Foundation, I followmedia coverage of these issues on a regular basis. As you must be aware, thedeliberations of the California State Board of Education on mathematicsstandards have received a great deal of attention. In some of the articles sincethe middle of December, reference was made to end quotes taken from a lettersent to you in the course of those deliberations by my colleague LutherWilliams, NSF's Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources. I wasconcerned about some of the interpretations of this letter in the press. At myrequest, Dr. Williams recently shared his letter with me. I believe it can easilybe and in some instances has been misconstrued. I want to be sure that there isno misunderstanding in your mind about NSF's position on two very importantmatters.

(1) It is NSF policy not to prescribe particular standards for mathematics andscience education to NSF proposers and grantees or to the states in which theyreside. NSF's K-12 mathematics and science education activities are fundedthrough competitive programs to which interested organizations apply. Theproposals made to us by states, districts, schools, and other educationalorganizations are evaluated based on established criteria, which usually includereference to high-quality, rigorous standards to be designed and implemented bythe participating entities. NSF believes that it is the responsibility of states andlocal school districts to establish and implement the standards to which theyhold themselves.

(2) NSF does not regard the State Board's action with respect to statewidestandards as grounds for terminating funding to what we believe are criticallyimportant projects in California school districts. Dr. Williams' letter expressedhis personal concern that the statewide standards you were considering couldhave a negative impact on the ability of the school systems listed to live up tothe objectives of the cooperative agreements negotiated in the award process.Unfortunately, his letter has been interpreted as a threat to terminate the awards,if the State Board enacted the standards under consideration. Neither he nor Iwould countenance such an action.

340 Standards Wars

Finally, my reading of the media articles surrounding the California

standards for K-12 mathematics is that, while the standards have been adopted,the underlying issues remain controversial in your state, as they are in otherparts of the Nation. I hope California will take the lead in initiating a broadpublic discussion of what is important in mathematics education that avoids thepolarization of issues that has characterized much of the debate thus far. Thiscould be vitally important to other states involved in establishing standards andin the periodic revision of standards that is expected to occur.

While the California standards are described as placing their focus on basiccomputational skills, I see also clear recognition on your part that the needs formathematics education do not stop there. All students must be able to use basicskills effectively in developing means of solving more complex problems. Weneed to find a way to demonstrate that basic skills and the contextual frameworkof real-world problems or more advanced mathematics in which they can beused reinforce one another, accomplishing what we all want—a set of variedapproaches that in combination provide what is best for the students.

Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional clarification onthese matters.

Sincerely,(signed)Neal LaneDirector

Appendix C

INFORMATIVETO: Members, Board of EducationDATE: December 8, 1997FROM: Ruben Zacarias, SuperintendentSUBJECT: Standards-Based Mathematics Curriculum

The following information is provided to inform members of the Board as to theprogress towards implementation of the LAUSD Mathematics Standards, inlight of the recent California Board of Education acceptance of its K-7mathematics standards. The Division of Instructional Services’ Standards andAssessment Office and Los Angeles Systemic Initiative have assisted in framingthe following issues for the Board's consideration.


*Does the District need to adjust its Mathematics standards in response tothe State Board standards?

No. The high expectations for student achievement set forth by the schoolboard and the Superintendent will be met by implementing the standards-basedcurriculum recommended by the Los Angeles Systemic Initiative.

*Given the State Board standards, will the District continue to use its ownStandards?

Yes. The LAUSD Standards include and go beyond the State Boardstandards.

*How will LAUSD students be affected by the State Board standards?When teachers continue to provide student centered instruction, students will

have the balanced program called for in the Mathematics Advisory to the StateBoard of Education. Such a balanced program will enhance studentachievement, not only on assessments such as the State assessments which arealigned to the State Board standards but also with the District assessmentprogram (Stanford 9, performance-based assessment, and teacher judgmentcomponent).

*How will District standards-based curriculum be impacted by the StateBoard standards?

Basic skills are incorporated in the all of the LA-SI recommended curricula.Instructional delivery in the implementation of these curricular tools will delivera balance of problem solving, basic skills, and conceptual understanding.

*How will classroom instruction be impacted by the State Board standards?LAUSD classroom teachers will continue to provide instruction which best

ensures the success of all of our students. A variety of instructional strategieswill be used in these classrooms.

*Specifically, what is the appropriate role of calculators in the classroom?All teachers support the mastery of basic skills. Calculators provide students

opportunities to apply and extend their mathematical skills appropriate for the“Information Age” in which they will live and work.

342 Standards Wars

*Would textbooks that are aligned to the new State Board standards meet the

LAUSD standards? If textbooks are written to meet, but not surpass, the expectations in the StateBoard standards, then LAUSD teachers will be forced to supplement theprograms to deliver a rigorous, challenging mathematics program our studentsdeserve.

Appendix D

January 21, 1998

David KleinProfessor of MathematicsCalifornia State University, NorthridgeNorthridge, CA 91330

Dear Dr. Klein:

This letter is in response to your comments to Julie Korenstein criticizing theLos Angeles Unified School District's reaction to the new math standardsadopted by the State of California. The common goal that we believe isexpressed in both your letter and the LAUSD mathematics standards for studentsto have facility with basic skills as well as the conceptual underpinnings ofmathematics that make it possible for them to extend and apply these skills inmany contexts, academic as well as real-world. We urge the professors whosenames are attached to this letter to heed the words of Secretary of EducationRichard W. Riley, as reported in the Los Angeles Times on January 21, 1998.Secretary Riley stresses the positive advances in mathematics results during thecurrent decade. More important to this response is his urging us to movebeyond the “shortsighted, politicized and harmful bickering over the teachingand learning of mathematics.” Certainly we all want students graduating fromLAUSD to succeed at the university level as well as in the workplace.

My comments in an informative to the LAUSD Board of Educationimplying a deficiency in the state board mathematics standards are consistentwith statements made by well-respected mathematicians and scientists fromCalifornia and other states. For example, mathematics professors Dr. ScottFarrand, California University, Sacramento and Dr. Calvin Moore, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, have stated: “The imbalance in the direction of skills that


these (state board) Standards would create is an affront to the stated Boardpolicy of balance.” The mathematics education community has gone on recordin support of the California Educational Roundtable standards for graduatingseniors. This consensus document, created by a coalition of CommunityCollege, California State University, and University of Californiamathematicians, among others, was strongly endorsed by teachers andadministrators in the LAUSD. Dr. Luther Williams, Assistant Director ofEducation and Human Resources for the National Science Foundation, stated ina letter to Yvonne Larson, President of the State Board of Education: “Thewistful or nostalgic “back-to-basics” approach that characterizes the Boardstandards overlooks the fact that the approach has chronically and dismallyfailed. It has excluded youngsters from engaging in genuine mathematicalthinking and therefore true mathematical learning.”

There is an unstated assumption present in this letter which expresses oneview of school mathematics: if students have mastered (memorized) the “basics”at a lower level, then they will be able to perform better in the higher levelclasses taught by mathematics experts. Mathematics is not free of differentphilosophies and approaches. The two Stanford mathematics professors whowrote the state standards (assisted by a professor emeritus of UC Davis)certainly are entitled to their perspective of mathematics as a fixed set of factsand procedures to be learned.

However, another reknown mathematician from Stanford, the late GeorgePolya, promoted a view of mathematics as problem solving. Polya's seminalwork in this area and with classroom teachers, was very influential on thedevelopment of mathematical curricula during the 80's to the present. TheLAUSD Standards maintain a balanced approach, honoring both perspectives ofmathematics, as we feel most educators do.

Mathland, which was highly recommended by the California InstructionalResources Evaluation Panel, is one of the LASI recommended curricularprograms. The Mathland program is not the LAUSD math standards as stated inyour letter, but one of several math programs selected by school staffs. Teacherswho use this program as intended, supported by District professionaldevelopment, continue to stress basic skills while preparing students for the 21stcentury by providing them with opportunities to analyze and question data andstatistics in order to fully participate in our democracy as informed citizens.

Thank you for expressing your concerns.

Sincerely,

344 Standards Wars

(signed)Ruben ZacariasSuperintendent of Schools

cc. Julie Korenstein [LAUSD Board Member]

chapter 13, stotskyvcmth00m/chap13.pdf · “los angeles…is one of several cities in the usi...

Documents